Textiles and The Environmental in A Circular Economy

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/6
Textiles and the environment in a circular economy
November 2019
Authors:
ETC experts: Saskia Manshoven (VITO), Maarten Christis (VITO),
An Vercalsteren (VITO), Mona Arnold (VTT),
Mariana Nicolau (CSCP), Evelyn Lafond (OVAM)
EEA experts: Lars Fogh Mortensen, Luca Coscieme
ETC/WMGE consortium partners: Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO),

CENIA, Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (CSCP), Research
Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth of National Research Council (IRCrES), The Public
Waste Agency of Flanders (OVAM), Sustainability, Environmental Economics and Dynamic
Studies (SEEDS), VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Banson/World Spotlight II, The
Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment, Energy (WI)
Cover photo © istockphoto, credits Karl-Friedrich Hohl, reference: 642628996
Legal notice
The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commission or other institutions
of the European Union. Neither the European Environment Agency, the European Topic Centre on Waste and Materials in a Green
Economy nor any person or company acting on behalf of the Agency or the Topic Centre is responsible for the use that may be
made of the information contained in this report.
Copyright notice
© European Topic Centre Waste and Materials in a Green Economy (2019)
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
European Topic Centre on Waste and Materials

in a Green Economy
Boeretang 200
BE-2400 Mol
Tel.: +14 33 59 83
Web: wmge.eionet.europa.eu
Email: etcwmge@vito.be
Contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1 Introduction: the world of textiles ........................................................................................................ 2
1.1 Textiles are fundamental to human wellbeing.............................................................................. 2
1.2 Towards a circular textiles production and consumption system ................................................ 2
2 Trends in the production and consumption of textiles ......................................................................... 5
2.1 Production and consumption trends............................................................................................. 5
2.2 Collection, reuse, recycling and waste management trends in Europe and elsewhere ............. 14
3 Environmental and social impacts of textiles ...................................................................................... 18
3.1 Environmental impacts................................................................................................................ 18
3.1.1 Resource use........................................................................................................................ 19
3.1.2 Land use ............................................................................................................................... 20
3.1.3 Greenhouse gas emissions .................................................................................................. 22
3.1.4 Chemicals............................................................................................................................. 23
3.2 Social impacts .............................................................................................................................. 25
4 From a linear to a circular production and consumption system for textiles ..................................... 27
4.1 Initiatives towards a sustainable textiles system ........................................................................ 27
4.2 Envisioning a circular system for textiles .................................................................................... 27
4.3 Circular business models and policy options for textiles ............................................................ 30
4.3.1 Choice of materials .............................................................................................................. 30
4.3.2 Design .................................................................................................................................. 33
4.3.3 Production and distribution stages ..................................................................................... 34
4.3.4 Use stage ............................................................................................................................. 37
4.3.5 Collection, recycling and waste treatment stages .............................................................. 41
5 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 45
Acknowledgements
The report has been produced within the task on ‘Textile products and the environment’ of the 2019
ETC/WMGE work program. Lars Mortensen (EEA) has been the project leader and Saskia Manshoven
(ETC/WMGE) has been the task leader.
The authors are grateful to the following experts and organisations for their comments that substantially
improved the quality of the report: Marco Manfroni (European Commission, DG GROW), Ruben Dekker
(European Commission, DG Environment), Josiane Masson (European Commission, DG Environment),
Sandra Averous-Monnery (UNEP), Emily Macintosh (The European Environmental Bureau), Arthur Ten
Wolde (Ecopreneur.eu), Eline Boon (The Ellen MacArthur Foundation), David Watson (PlanMiljø), John
Wante (OVAM), Bente Bauer (Sustainable Apparel Coalition), Bart Ullstein (BCI), Almut Reichel (EEA),
Dominik Chadid (EEA) and Ioannis Bakas (EEA). Bart Ullstein (BCI) provided a very careful editing of the
report.
Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 1

1 Introduction: the world of textiles
1.1 Textiles are fundamental to human wellbeing
Textiles are fundamental to the wellbeing of people in Europe and across the world. Textiles provide us
with clothing and footwear – it is illegal in most places not to wear clothes – keeping us warm and enabling
us to express personality and taste. Textiles are also used to make bed linens and towels, carpets and
curtains for our homes, offices and public spaces, as well as providing materials for such other sectors as
furniture and transportation, for example for car seats. At the same time, the textile value chain provides
jobs to millions of people around the world, contributing to economic growth.
The system of production and consumption of textiles is highly globalised with millions of producers and
billions of consumers spread across the world in highly linear value chains involving raw material
extraction, production, transportation, consumption and after-use disposal. Although the European Union
(EU) is a net importer of textiles, mainly from Asia, it also exports huge amounts to other regions,
representing more than 30 per cent of the world textile market (EC, 2019). In 2018, the textiles sector in
the EU consisted of 171,000 companies, employing 1.7 million people and with a turnover of EUR 178
billion (Euratex, 2019b). In 2017, the total consumption of textile products ( 1) by households in the EU27,
Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom was estimated as 13 million tonnes ( 2), with a value
of EUR 445 billion (Stadler et al. (2018)).
The textile sector, including the fashion industry, has significant environmental footprint across its value
chain. Natural fibres, such as cotton and wool, are produced using vast areas of agricultural land and large
amounts of water, energy and chemicals, while the manufacture of synthetic fibres is based on fossil fuels.
The use of chemicals and additives in textile production exerts significant impacts on local and regional
water bodies. Their global distribution network emits greenhouse gases and generates packaging waste.
In the use phase, washing and drying of textiles result in significant water and energy use as well as the
release of chemicals and micro-plastics into rivers and the marine environment. The sector is a major
contributor to climate change through its energy use and waste management. Apparel and footwear have
been estimated to produce as much as 8 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions through their life-
cycles (Quantis, 2018). In 2015, greenhouse gas emissions from textile production amounted to 1.2 billion
tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq), more than international flights and shipping combined (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2017).
The textile industry can also have huge social impacts, as we were reminded by the 2013 Rana Plaza
incident in Bangladesh when a textile factory collapsed killing more than a thousand workers. The payment
of extremely low wages and dangerous working conditions are widespread in the industry.
1.2 Towards a circular textiles production and consumption system
A sustainable textile system should bring wellbeing and value to society through the provision of safe,
high-quality and affordable textile products and the creation of inclusive jobs with fair wages and working
conditions, while at the same time minimising any negative environmental and social impacts, and
respecting the carrying capacity of the planet. Across the value chain, pollution and waste should be
limited. To ensure the conservation of the value of materials, efficient collection and recycling processes
should be put in place, allowing high-quality, clean and safe product and materials cycles.
1
Includes the Classification of Individual Consumption According to Purpose (COICOP) domains for clothing (3.1),
footwear (3.2) and household textiles (5.2).
2
Amount calculated for 2017 consumption data, based on 2011 data and conversion factors in EXIOBASE 3.4 This
estimate is based on a 30 gram per euro (2017) final expenditure conversion factor, which is derived from EXIOBASE
v. 3.4 in combination with Eurostat expenditure statistics [nama_10_co3_p3] and [prc_hicp_aind]. This conversion
factor includes the value of the textile product itself, as well as the value of trade and transport activities.

The European Commission has identified textiles, apparel and fabrics, as a priority product category within
a circular economy (EC, 2019). A more circular and sustainable textile system could contribute to the
achievement of both EU and global goals. In the EU, it would contribute to economic growth and job
creation as well as to meeting the aims of the circular economy and a number of climate, environmental
and waste targets. At the global level, this more circular and sustainable system would contribute to many
of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including Goal 6: Clean water and Sanitation, Goal 7:
Affordable and Clean Energy, Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production, and Goal 13: Climate
Action.
Textile production in Europe is regulated through a patchwork of EU and national legislation, including on
production methods and working conditions, and fibre names, related labelling and the marketing of the
fibre composition of textile products (EC, 2019b). Legislation on chemicals, industrial emissions, product
safety, etc. also regulates textiles. The production of textiles within the EU, for example, is covered by the
EU Regulation on Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) and the Industrial Emissions Directive
(IED). Textiles produced outside the EU are also subject to product regulation, such as EU eco-label criteria
and green public procurement criteria for textiles. Furthermore, the 2018 revision of the EU Waste
Framework Directive (WFD) includes an obligation for Member States to collect textiles separately by 1
January 2025 (EC, 2019).
European countries face constraints in influencing production methods and related negative social and
environmental impacts that occur elsewhere. As the EU relies heavily on textile imports, there are key
challenges when it comes to ensuring that textile products entering the EU are subject to the same
standards. Despite such constraints, there are several policy options which can have an effect on
production methods in other regions, some of which have already been implemented. Examples are
policies related to green public procurement, standards and labelling, and waste management.
Transparency and traceability through the value chain are also key.
To move towards a more circular and sustainable system the EU needs to go beyond separate collection
of textile waste and recycling. Regulation of textile production and consumption should go hand-in-hand
with technological innovation, aimed at favouring renewable fibres and fabrics, product design that
facilitates longer use and reuse, and efficient production processes that generate less waste and fewer
emissions (Bauer et al., 2018), and phasing-out of hazardous chemicals. Social innovation related, for
example, to how consumers interact and share clothing is also needed. To foster profound behavioural
change, the scaling of sustainable, circular business models is key (Elander et al., 2017; Watson et al.,
2017). The circular management of textiles requires the creation of safe product and material cycles,
encouraging reuse and recycling, while avoiding waste incineration and landfilling.
A systemic change is needed, involving more stakeholders than the fashion industry alone, to overcome
technological and economic challenges. Among the different textile sectors, the fashion industry is taking
initiatives to improve the sustainability of its supply chains and processes. In the short term, focus is
primarily on implementing efficiency measures to reduce water, energy and chemicals use, while
improving supply chain traceability and working conditions. In parallel, tangible work towards a longer-
term objective has to start now, transforming the fashion industry to a circular system, embracing the
opportunities of digitisation and the development of sustainable fibres (Global Fashion Agenda, 2019).
Figure 1.1 illustrates a vision of a more circular textile system, including showing how circularity can be
improved in each phase of the lifecycle.
This report, which provides the analytical underpinning for an European Environment Agency (EEA)
briefing, investigates options for a circular and more sustainable textile production and consumption
system.

Chapter 2 shows the production and consumption of textiles from a European perspective. It maps textile
value chains, including main trade patterns, and discusses the current systems of production, consumption
and waste management, including economic and employment trends.
Chapter 3 analyses the environmental and social impacts of textiles. It provides an overview of the impacts
of the upstream supply chain of EU textile consumption. The environmental analysis focuses on four
particular hotspots: resource depletion of materials and water, land use, climate change and chemicals’
toxicity. The social impact assessment discusses working conditions, mainly in the production of textiles.
Chapter 4 provides a more detailed vision for a more circular and sustainable textile production and
consumption system. It analyses the potential for various types of new and innovative business models as
well as the role regulation can play in supporting innovation.
Chapter 5 concludes the report.
Figure 1.1 Vision of a circular economy for textiles
Source: EEA and ETC/WMGE, adapted from EEA (2016)

2 Trends in the production and consumption of textiles
2.1 Production and consumption trends
Textile production and consumption are highly globalised. In 2017, European households consumed nearly
26 kilograms (kg) of textile products ( 3) per person (Figure 2.1). This estimate comes with some
uncertainty, as various studies in different countries provide different estimates ranging from 9 to 27 kg
per person, depending on the data source and product scope (Watson et al., 2018; Šajn, 2019). An earlier
estimate by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) calculated the average annual EU
consumption of clothing and household textiles at 19.1 kg per person (JRC, 2014).
Only 7.4 kg of textiles per person were produced within the EU itself, making Europe highly dependent on
imports to fulfil its consumers’ demands. Europe also exports a significant amount of textiles, 11 kg per
person. The reason that EU exports exceed EU production is re-export: some textiles are imported, turned
into specific products and then re-exported.
The value of imported textiles in European clothing consumption increased by 9 per cent between 2014
and 2018. The net import of textiles into the EU in 2018 sums up to 8.8 million tonnes: 14.5 million
tonnes ( 4), with a value of EUR 139 billion, were imported in 2018 while only 5.7 million tonnes, with a
value of EUR 61 billion, were exported (Eurostat, 2019a). The export figure includes about 1.5 million
tonnes of worn clothing, 3 kg per person, with a value of EUR 1.3 billion. The difference between total
import and production versus total export and final consumption is related to stocks that had been built
up (Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.1 Overview of the import, export, production and consumption flows of textile
products, EU, 2017, kg per person ( 5).
The types of products that Europe imports and exports are different. Europe mainly imports finished textile
products, clothing and footwear products and clothing accessories, while exported textiles are typically
intermediate products, such as non-wovens, fibres and technical textiles, and high quality fabrics in which
European industry specialises (Figure 2.2).
3
Including clothing, footwear and household textiles (carpets, curtains, bedlinen, towels, etc.)
4
Textiles defined by the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (2012) Chapters 50–67 (Sections XI
and XII), including fibres, fabrics and finished products, such as clothing, footwear and household textiles.
5
The waste flow of textiles from stock is not included in this scheme.

Figure 2.2 Import into and export from EU by product type, including textile fibres, fabrics
and articles, footwear and headgear, 2018, per cent
Note: percentages may not sum due to rounding

Source: The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, Chapters 50–67 (2017)
As can be seen in figure 2.3, 85 per cent of the total quantity of textile imports into the EU come from just
10 countries, with 37 per cent coming from China, 11 per cent from Turkey, 10 per cent from Bangladesh
and 9 per cent from India. Exports are more fragmented, with the largest 10 destination countries
accounting for 55 per cent of total exports by volume, with 10 per cent of exports going to China, 9 per
cent to Turkey, 8 per cent to the United States, 5 per cent to Pakistan.

Figure 2.3 Import into and export from EU by country, 2018, per cent
Note: percentages may not sum due to rounding

Source: The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, Chapters 50–67 (2017)
The production of textiles is an important part of the European manufacturing industry, playing a crucial
role in the economy and wellbeing in many regions. In 2017, the EU’s total textile production ( 6) was 3
million tonnes; production of fibres accounts for 27 per cent of this, yarn production 36 per cent and
woven fabrics 37 per cent (Eurostat, 2019d). Natural and synthetic fibres are both produced and processed
by the European textile industry.
In 2018, there were around 171,000 companies in the EU’s textile and clothing industry, employing about
1.7 million people and generating a turnover of EUR 178 billion (Euratex, 2019b) – the sector is mainly
composed of small businesses with fewer than 50 employees (Business Beyond Borders, 2017). European
producers are global leaders in technical/industrial textiles and non-wovens – industrial filters, hygiene
products, products for the automotive and medical sectors, etc.– as well as in high-quality garment design
and production. When it comes to the European clothing industry, the largest producing countries are in
Central and Eastern Europe (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Georgia, Hungary,
Moldova, North Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, Turkey and Ukraine (Luginbühl and Musiolek, 2014)).
Worldwide, the number of garments produced annually has doubled since 2000 with, in 2014, 100 billion
items being exceeded for the first time, an annual production of nearly 14 new items of clothing per person
on Earth (Remy et al., 2016).
The global production of textile fibres has almost tripled since 1975 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017).
When looking at the global textile sector, about 60 per cent of textile fibres produced are synthetic
polymers, while 37 per cent is dominated by cotton (Sandin and Peters, 2018; Palm et al., 2013).
6
NACE Rev. 2 – Division 13

Figure 2.4 World consumption of major textile fibres between 1960 and 2018, million
tonnes
Source: ICAC (2019)
The global annual production and consumption of cotton fibres, currently to most prevalent for clothing,
more than doubled from slightly more than 10 million tonnes in 1960 to about 25 million tonnes in 2010,
and has since remained more or less static (Figure 2.4Source: ICAC (2019)
). Cotton may, however, become an increasingly costly premium product in the future as a result of
challenges related to land use and water consumption (WRAP, 2019). According to a study by the JRC
(2014) focusing on the EU, about 43 per cent of all clothing is made of cotton, 16 per cent of polyester,
and 10 per cent each of acrylic, wool and viscose. About 54 per cent of fibres used in clothing are natural
but in household textiles, about 70 per cent are synthetic – overall cotton and polyester at 28 per cent
each, are the most prevalent, followed by polyamide at 23 per cent. Acrylic and polypropylene are
important fibres in carpet manufacture.
The global consumption of synthetic fibres increased from marginal amounts in 1960 to more than 60
million tonnes in 2016, and continues to rise (Figure 2.4). Polyester, the most commonly used fibre across
the world, is a synthetic, non-renewable, petroleum-based fibre made using a carbon-intensive process
that requires more than 70 million barrels of oil each year (WRAP, 2019). Polyester fabrics are durable,
wrinkle resistant and are used in clothing, home furnishings and variety of industrial applications including
cushioning and insulating materials as well as ropes, car tyres and conveyor belts.
Currently, only 2 per cent of all synthetic polymers is made from bio-based resources. Of this share, 11 per
cent is produced for textile applications (Nova Institut, 2019). Production of synthetic cellulosic fibres–
lyocell, viscose, etc. – was estimated at 5 million tonnes in 2016. Production is growing and so is the share
produced sustainably from certified forests (TextileExchange, 2018).
To create fabrics with improved properties, such as increased breathability and durability, to achieve
special colour effects or reduce production costs, different fibre types are often blended into composite

yarns. One of the most common textile materials, polycotton, used in most service textiles, such as sheets,
towels and workwear, is made of a mix of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and cotton in varying
percentages (Palme et al., 2017).
On average European households spent EUR 871 per person on textile products in 2017 (Exiobase 3.4).
The supply chain of textile products bought in Europe is spread all over the world and it is very complex in
terms of sectors involved. The global distribution of gross value added and employment related to final
consumption of textile products have been calculated by using an extended multiregional input model
based on EXIOBASE v.3.4 data (Stadler et al., 2018). In figures 2.5 and 2.6, 2011 Exiobase data were
combined with 2017 household consumption data from Eurostat (methodology in annex).
As can be seen in Figure 2.5, 67 per cent of the gross value added in the supply chain of textile products
bought by European households is generated in Europe, followed by 23 per cent in Asia and the Pacific.
This is much less than other consumption categories, where the gross value added in Europe varies from
80 to 95 per cent. This illustrates the importance of activities outside Europe for textiles. Forty-four per
cent of the gross value added is generated in the textile industry; Other important sectors are services, 16
per cent; other industries, 12 per cent; and transport, 11 per cent. The share of agriculture, for the
cultivation of natural fibres, in total value added is low at just 3 per cent.
Figure 2.5: The generation of gross value added in the upstream supply chain ( 7) of EU
household consumption domains, indexed values with textile consumption equalling 100,
2017.
Source: Exiobase v.3.4 (Stadler et al., 2018)
7
This includes all activities in industrial and service sectors in the production and supply chain of the textile products
up to purchase by households. It excludes the use of the textile products and the treatment at end of life.

Looking at employment in the supply chain of textile products bought by European households, textiles
is the second most important sector after food (Figure 2.6). Labour intensity in agriculture and the clothing
industry is an important factor in this context. Only 28 per cent of employment in the supply chain takes
place in Europe, which is one of the smallest shares of all consumption categories. Forty-three per cent of
working hours are linked to the textile industry, which is in line with the gross value added. Agriculture,
however, represents 28 per cent of employment compared to just 3 per cent of value added. The
geographical distribution of gross value added differs significantly from the distribution of employment:
56 per cent of the employment takes place in Asia and the Pacific, 28 per cent in Europe and 12 per cent
in Africa. According to the Exiobase socio-economic model, 40 per cent of the workforce in the textile
supply chain worldwide is female and 89 per cent is low- or medium-skilled. The share of female workers,
50 per cent, is much higher in the textile industry itself compared to the other industries involved in the
supply chain, such as agriculture, trade and transport in which it is 22–38 per cent. Due to the prevalence
of informal employment in agriculture and the production of textiles, the share of female workers is
probably higher in reality, up to 75 per cent globally (European Commission, 2017). Payment of employees
accounts for 52 per cent of the gross value added of the textile industry worldwide, with large differences
in the cost of employment between regions: EUR 3.44 per hour on average, with a factor of seven
difference between Europe and Asia.
Figure 2.6: The use of employment in the upstream supply chain ( 8) of EU household
consumption domains, indexed values with textile consumption equalling 100, 2017.
Worldwide, the consumption of technical textiles – industrial textiles, workwear, etc. – accounted to 33.2
million tonnes in 2015, and is estimated to grow to 42.2 million tonnes by 2020 (TextileToday, 2016).
8
This includes all activities in industrial and service sectors in the production and supply chain of the textile products
up to purchase by households. It excludes the use of the textile products and the treatment at end of life.

Technical textiles have a wide variety of uses encompassing civil engineering, agriculture and fishing,
construction, the automotive industry, medical uses, protection and machinery. Technical textiles have
generally high durability requirements and thus are, to a large extent, composed of synthetic fibres.
When looking at the textile consumption of households, it can be seen that textiles and related products
are an important part of current lifestyles in Europe. In 2017, EU households spent 5.3 per cent of their
total expenditure on textile products ( 10), representing a value of EUR 445 billion on, of which 74 per cent
was on clothing, 17 per cent on footwear and 8 per cent on household textiles (Eurostat, 2019b).
When analysing the trends of the total expenditure of EU households, there is a slight decline in the share
attributed to clothing, footwear and household textiles, from 6.3 per cent in 2000 to 5.3 per cent in 2017
(Figure 2.7Source: Eurostat (2019b)
). Despite this slight decrease in expenditure, the total number of clothing items consumed has increased
and is expected to further increase in the coming years. Concretely, there was a 40 per cent growth in the
amount of purchased clothes per person in the EU between 1996 and 2012 (Šajn, 2019). In other words,
Europeans have been able to buy more pieces of clothing while spending a smaller share of their income
on them. At a global level, the consumption of clothing and footwear is expected to increase by 63 per
cent by 2030, from 62 million tonnes now to 102 million tonnes in 2030.
Figure 2.7 Household expenditure on clothing, footwear and household textiles as a

proportion of total household expenditure in the EU, 2000–2017, per cent
Source: Eurostat (2019b)
A combination of multiple factors and drivers have led to the increased consumption of clothing. These
include production trends based on low-cost and fast fashion and a respective decrease in the price of
clothing; the increasing affluence of consumers; further trade liberalisation; and technological
10
Clothing (CP031), Footwear (CP032) and household textiles (CP052).

advancement (EEA, 2014). Moreover, a general trend can be seen towards a more consumerist mindset,
in which consumption is seen more as gratification rather than a function of meeting needs.
Throughout the past years, companies have increasingly invested in streamlining and optimising their
supply chain operations as well as in cutting production costs by deploying fragmented, low-tech
production systems and using cheaper, low-quality materials (Remy et al., 2016). This process has been
driven by the globalisation and industrialisation of the clothing and textile industry as well as the push to
improve, gain and/or maintain market competitiveness. These developments, on one hand, have led to
lower and more affordable consumer prices (Koszewska, 2018) – for example, between 1996 and 2018,
clothing prices in the EU dropped by more than 30 per cent relative to total harmonised index of consumer
prices ( 11) inflation (Figure 2.8).
Figure 2.8 Consumer price indices for clothing relative to HICP inflation in the EU, 1996–
2018
Source: Eurostat (2019c)
On the other hand, more efficient and shorter (in time) production processes have contributed to the more
frequent introduction of fashion and clothing lines and shorter market seasons. Fast fashion aims at
consumers who want to follow trends and change their wardrobes frequently. In fast fashion, styles from
high-end fashion shows are rapidly delivered to consumers at cheap prices, achieved, in art, by using
lower-quality materials. As such, fast fashion encourages over consumption and the generation of waste
(House of Commons, 2019). A driver of this trend is a pursuit of added value and growth by continuously
promoting the purchase of new products and the disposal of old ones, which are branded as obsolete
simply because they are out of fashion. European apparel companies in 2011, for example, released an
11
The harmonised index of consumer prices (HICP) measures the price change of consumer goods and services over
time

average of five collections as opposed to two clothing lines, which was the norm around the year 2000
(Koszewska, 2018). Accordingly, some of the biggest brands mainly targeting young people are releasing
between 12, 16 and 24 new clothing collections every year (Remy et al., 2016).
This has led to increased consumption accompanied by a decrease in the lifespan of clothes, which are
generally worn fewer times – around seven to eight on average, kept for a shorter period than in the past,
and treated as almost disposable (Remy et al., 2016). In Europe, the average lifespan of clothes varies
between 2.2 and 5 years (WRAP, 2012; Gray, 2017), with clothing items across various categories being
kept by consumers for half as long as they used to be 15 years ago. Garments are prematurely discarded,
because of fast-changing trends or their general poor quality. More recently, however, the push model is
being challenged by a pull or demand-driven model in which consumers, rather than clothing brands, guide
the development of the textile and clothing market, through for example social media, bloggers,
influencers and peer reviews. This trend, which is also encouraged by many brands, spurs companies to
quickly develop and produce customised items, based, for instance, on consumers’ designs or simulations,
on demand (Andersson et al., 2018).
Reflecting the complexity of human behaviour, a wide range of factors and drivers are seen to influence
consumer purchasing. Across countries, a clear relation exists between income and per person spending
on clothing (EEA, 2014). Factors such as product fit, price and value for money, quality, brand, durability,
comfort, convenience and latest trends are some of the most frequently mentioned determining factors.
Cultural and societal factors, such as social status, identity, social influence or peer pressure also have a
role to play, as well as marketing and the influence of retailers (Paras et al., 2018). The cultural context,
however, also affects spending on clothing: Italians, for example, tend to spend much more on clothes
than people with higher disposable income from other European countries, such as France or Denmark
(EEA, 2014).
Hiring or leasing clothes is less common. According to a Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP)
survey in 2012 in the United Kingdom (UK), the only types of clothes that more than one in ten people
hired were formal wear, 13 per cent, and fancy dress, 11 per cent, while only 2 per cent of respondents
has leased any type of clothing. Around half the respondents, however, said they would consider hiring
clothes more frequently if it were easier to do – for example, through major high-street retailers (WRAP,
2012).
Although European consumers are increasingly aware of sustainability when shopping for clothes, such
concerns still have a limited impact in informing consumer decisions (Vehmas et al., 2018). Aspects such
as quality, comfort, price and fit score higher in the priority list. According to a recent Cotton Council
International and Cotton Incorporated Global Environment survey conducted in China, Germany, India,
Italy, Mexico, the UK and the United States, for example, sustainability was mentioned as a behavioural
determinant by 60 per cent of respondents, with comfort and price mentioned by 88 per cent, quality by
89 per cent, and fit by 90 per cent (TextileToday, 2018). In another survey conducted by Fashion Revolution
(2018) with 5,000 respondents from France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK, 38 per cent and 37 per cent
mentioned they consider social and environmental impacts, respectively, when purchasing clothes. This
rather low prioritisation of sustainability could potentially be explained by the idea that assessing clothing
sustainability is very complex due to a lack of transparency about production conditions and impacts
(Vehmas et al., 2018).
When it comes to shopping habits, online shopping is growing rapidly with only a small majority of
European consumers still preferring to buy their clothes from physical stores (CBRE, 2013). According to a
Mastercard (2017) survey, 48 per cent of European consumers purchase clothing and footwear online,
which makes online shopping for clothes more popular than for tickets, 34 per cent; electronics, 33 per
cent; or books, 31per cent. Online sales platforms are increasingly making it easier for manufacturers to
sell and consumers to shop and return products anywhere in the world, eliminating the need for

intermediary actors (CBI, 2018). Consequently, the increase in online sales has a large impact on resource
use and emissions in terms of packaging and transport.
2.2 Collection, reuse, recycling and waste management trends in Europe and elsewhere
It is estimated that EU consumers discard about 5.8 million tonnes of textiles every year, which equates to
11.3 kg per person (Beasley and Georgeson, 2014). Figure 2.9 shows that separate collection-to-
consumption ratios range from 11 per cent in Italy to more than 70 per cent in Germany (Watson et al.,
2018). The differences between countries can be partly explained by differences in infrastructure, such as
the density of collection points and the intensity of collection activities by charity organisations and private
actors. In addition, national policy measures play an important role, such as the availability of subsidies
and research and development (R&D) support for sorting and recycling initiatives and the organisation of
public awareness campaigns to influence consumer behaviour (Watson et al., 2018).
Figure 2.9 Estimated consumption and separate collection rates for clothing and
household textiles in seven EU countries.
Source: Watson et al. (2018)

Note: Figures for Denmark (DK), France (FR), Germany (DE) and the UK include footwear
Reuse of textiles is much more environmentally advantageous than recycling (Schmidt et al., 2016).
Traditionally, the collection of used textiles was dominated by charities along with some private actors
(EEA, 2018). More recently however, voluntary take-back campaigns have been set up by larger retailers
(Hvass and Pedersen, 2019) and municipalities are also increasingly getting involved (Watson et al., 2018).
Gunther (2016), however, pointed out that consumers do not generally return clothes and the
participation in companies' recycling efforts is limited, regardless of the incentives.
Apart from the benefit of waste prevention, sorting and reuse also offer opportunities for (low-skilled)
employment. Experience from textile collection and reuse schemes in Flanders, the Nordic countries and
the UK, however, has shown that on average only about 10 per cent of collected used garments are reused
within the same region, with a variation 4–30 per cent (WRAP, 2012; De Kringwinkel, 2017; Schmidt et al.,
2016). Results from the European Clothing Action Plan study point to Denmark as a country where buying
second-hand clothing is relatively popular, but even there it does not exceed 9 per cent of total purchasing

decisions. In the other countries considered – Germany, Italy, Netherlands and the UK – the share of
second-hand purchases is typically below 5 per cent (Gray, 2017). At the same time, reuse businesses and
peer-to-peer reuse trade are increasing due to ease of marketing through the internet. An important
question is whether the purchase of second-hand textile products actually replaces the purchase of new
items, and to what extent. Based on a survey among more than 200 consumers in Denmark, Estonia and
Sweden, Farrant et al. (2010) estimated that for each 100 second-hand garments purchased, about 60–85
new items would be saved.
In general, a large share of unsorted collected textiles is sent for sorting in Eastern European countries,
then exported again for reuse or recycling in Africa and Asia. Figure 2.10Source: Eurostat (2019a)
shows that the export of used clothes from the EU is significant and increasing. Most receiving countries
have a well-established second-hand clothing markets: in Uganda, for example, 81 per cent of clothing
purchases are of used clothing (Brooks, 2015). Although there are some benefits, such as the creation of
local jobs in sorting and selling, and the provision of cheap clothes, there are also increasing concerns that
the oversupply of used textiles, together with increased imports of cheap new clothing from Asia may have
contributed to the decline of domestic textile industries in sub-Saharan countries (Watson et al., 2016). In
January 2018, Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, South Sudan and Uganda all announced that they
intended to stop importing used clothes from Europe and the United States by 2019 in order to support
their own textile industries (Gittleson, 2018), but as a result of political pressure, only Rwanda remains
committed to this policy (News24, 2018).
Figure 2.10 Export and import of worn textiles, 2000-2018, EU
Source: Eurostat (2019a)
The 2018 revision of the WFD includes an obligation on Member States to collect textiles separately by
1 January 2025 (EC, 2019). Since global markets for used clothing are becoming saturated, however,
finding suitable outlets for increasing volumes of collected textiles will be a challenge (Ljungkvist et al.,
2018). It will, therefore, be important to make progress in textile-to-textile recycling. Currently, the non-

reusable fraction of collected textiles is mostly downcycled into industrial rags, upholstery filling and
insulation, or is incinerated or landfilled. Less than 1 per cent of textile waste is recycled into new fibres
for clothing as technologies for processing textiles to recycled fibres are only starting to emerge (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Textiles that are currently made from recycled content often rely on
polyester fibres made of waste plastic bottles and cannot be recycled themselves with the current
technology. As such, this is not really an example of a circular product, but rather a delayed disposal of
plastic packaging waste (Buchel et al., 2018).
Currently, little textile-to-textile recycling takes place due to technical challenges in fibre separation and
fibre quality (Elander et al., 2017; Palm et al., 2014). In mechanical recycling processes, all substances,
hazardous and non-hazardous, remain in the material and are carried over to the new product.
Furthermore, as the mechanical recycling of most textile materials leads to inferior-quality fibre of reduced
fibre lengths and strength, mechanical recycling can be regarded as downcycling (Morley et al., 2006).
Currently, mechanical fibre-to-fibre ( 12) cotton recycling is only applicable to 100 per cent cotton textiles.
As a result, recycled fibres need to be mixed with virgin fibre when producing new textiles. The maximum
share of recycled cotton fibres in new cotton clothing is currently about 30 per cent, while recycled denim
in jeans products amounts to 50 per cent (Wolkat, 2019; HNST, 2019). Up to 50 per cent recycled cotton
is also used in some blended yarns, in which cotton is mixed with synthetic fibres such as recycled PET or
nylon (Recover, 2019). Some applications of recycled polyester fibres, such as duvet filling, contain about
50 per cent recycled content (Watson et al., 2017). Other recycled fibres are widely used in insulation
materials for automotive upholstery etc. (Pitkänen, 2019). Overall, at present options for recycling end-of-
life technical textiles are quite limited, and significant volumes of them are directed to energy recovery.
The major barrier to high-quality textile recycling is their diverse mix of materials, coatings, dyes and non-
textile objects (Elander et al., 2017). Mechanical recycling of mixed fibres does not return a product of the
same quality as the original. When recycling polycotton for example, a separate fractionation step is
required to separate the cotton from the PET. This can be done chemically by depolymerising or dissolving
one of the components while maintaining the other (Palme et al., 2017). Such chemical recycling, however,
needs more development and its environmental impacts further investigated (Sandin and Peters, 2018;
Schmidt et al., 2016).
Table 2.1 Recycling processes for major fibres/textiles

Material Mechanical recycling Chemical recycling
Polyester Sorting by type and colour, washing Depolymerisation, repolymerisation and
and chopping. extrusion into chips
Extrusion into yarn
Nylon /polyamide Cleaning and pelletisation (for Depolymerisation and repolymerisation
homogenous flows only) to make new yarn
Cotton Separation by colour, shredding and Promising innovative development
re-spinning
Wool Separation by colour, pulling the Not available
garment back into a fibrous state
Polycotton Small scale processes for producing Requires pre-separation into cotton and
insulation materials and other lower polyester. Still in pilot phase
grade applications
Source: Rengel (2017)
Textiles that are not collected separately generally end up in mixed municipal solid waste. Following
national municipal solid waste treatment strategies, 34 per cent of this textile waste is incinerated, 25 per
12
cotton from used/worn textiles converted into cotton to make new textiles

cent is landfilled and 41 per cent is sent to mechanical-biological treatment plants to reduce the organic
fraction prior to its incineration or landfilling ( 13).
There are substantial differences among European countries about when used textiles are and are not
defined as waste. In some countries all textiles collected through containers are considered waste, while
in others the actual reusability or the intention of the person delivering the textiles (discarding or donating)
is taken into account. This issue is of key importance for collection, transport, processing and ownership.
The handling of waste is regulated by the WFD and requires companies to have collection and processing
permits, waste shipping documents and to report in national waste registers (Watson et al., 2018).
13
European Reference Model on Municipal Waste Generation and Management, 2018 version, 2015 data for EU,
Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the UK

3 Environmental and social impacts of textiles
3.1 Environmental impacts
The environmental impact of the production and consumption of textiles reflects the high complexity and
linearity of their value chain. The range of impacts varies depending on the different textiles and fibres
considered, as well as the environmental and socio-economic contexts underlying the production,
distribution, use, and end-of-life phase (Figure 3.1). Amongst others, environmental impacts to which the
textile sector is a major contributor include the depletion of material resources and water, land use,
climate change and chemicals’ toxicity (JRC, 2014).
Figure 3.1 Environmental impacts across the textiles life-cycle
Source: EEA and ETC/WMGE, based on EEA (2014)
Environmental impacts in the production phase include the impacts of the cultivation of natural fibres,
due to such factors as changes in land use, extraction of water, and the use of fertilisers and pesticides,
and the energy required for production of synthetic fibres. The spinning and sizing of the fabrics, as well
as the finishing and printing/dyeing of the final products also contribute significantly (JRC, 2014). The
shipping of textiles around the globe adds to transport emissions and packaging waste.
Most impacts generated during the use-phase are due to the maintenance of textiles. The way that people
use and clean their clothing and household textiles – washing, drying and ironing – has a significant impact
on the environment. Washing frequency is high across the EU, with an estimated average of 6.2 washes
per week per household, with 12 per cent washing most frequently at 60° C, 43 per cent at 40° C and
24 per cent at 30° C (Gray, 2017). The collection and management of end-of-life textiles also have impacts
through their transport and processing, not to mention the significant volume of textiles that are finally
incinerated and landfilled.
The following sections focus on the environmental impact of textiles from the perspective of resource and
land use, climate change through greenhouse gas emissions, and chemicals, which are among the most
significant impacts. The global distribution of environmental impacts related to final consumption of

textiles has been calculated using an extended multiregional input model based on Exiobase v.3.4 data
(Stadler et al., 2018), using environmentally extended product-by-product tables. In figures 3.2, 3.3, 3.4
and 3.5, 2011 Exiobase data were combined with 2017 household consumption data from Eurostat
(methodology in annex).
3.1.1 Resource use
The textiles industry relies heavily on resources, both renewable, such as natural fibres, and non-
renewable ones, such as oil, to produce synthetic fibres, chemicals for dyeing and processing, and
pesticides and fertilisers for growing cotton (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017).
To produce all clothing, footwear and household textiles purchased by EU households in 2017, an
estimated 675 million tonnes, 1,321 kg per person, of primary raw materials were used (Figure 3.2). This
includes all types of materials, such as fossil fuels as used as feedstock for synthetic fibres and to generate
energy; fertilisers, minerals and metals used for production facilities; and biomass, excluding water. Most,
85 per cent, of the primary material consumption, the highest share of all household consumption
domains, takes place outside Europe. This illustrates that material and energy intensive parts of the textile
supply chain, mostly occur outside Europe, like agriculture and fibre production.
Figure 3.2 The use of primary raw materials in the upstream supply chain ( 2 ) of EU
2017

Note: CP052: household textiles
2
This includes all activities in industrial and service sectors in the production and supply chain of textile products up
to purchase by households. It excludes the use of t textile products and end-of-life.

In addition, textile production requires large amounts of water. In 2017, the production of textiles
purchased by EU households required an estimated 53,000 million cubic metres (m³) of water. The major
part, more than 90 per cent of this is used outside Europe (Figure 3.3). This is due to the fact that water
use is mainly related to the growing of fibre crops, such as cotton, which is mostly takes place elsewhere
in the world. This impact is further exacerbated when cotton production occurs in locations with water
scarcity, and its use for agriculture competes with demands for drinking and sanitation as well as the
production of other crops. Depending on these and other factors, such as the quality of irrigation systems,
the global average water footprint of 1 kg of cotton is slightly over 10,000 litres (Chapagain et al., 2006).
Figure 3.3 The water use in the upstream supply chain ( 3) of EU household consumption
domains, indexed values with textile consumption equalling 100, 2017

3.1.2 Land use
The production phase of textiles dominates the contribution of textiles to land use, in terms of agricultural
land and natural land transformation. Particularly for natural fibres like cotton, the cultivation phase has
an important impact on land use (JRC, 2014).
The land use in the supply chain of textiles purchased by European households in 2017 is comparable to
that of beverages and restaurants and hotels, which are both food related and thus land intensive product
3

domains (Figure 3.3). It is 6 times lower than the land use for food consumed by European households,
but 2–3 times higher than land use related to recreation and culture, and transport.
Figure 3.3 Land use in the upstream supply chain ( 4 ) of EU household consumption
domains, indexed values with textile consumption equalling 100, 2017

For the production of textile products consumed by European households, only 7 per cent of the land use
takes place in Europe. Again, this relates to the fact that the agricultural part of the textile supply chain is
mainly located elsewhere in the world.
Today, the impact on land use of textiles is to a large extent a consequence of the cultivation of one single
fibre crop, cotton. Globally, cotton cultivation covers over 31 million hectares, or 2.4 per cent of the global
arable land area (Kooistra and Termorshuizen, 2006), the largest producers being China and India.
Land use for the cultivation of textile fibre crops has the potential to contribute to food deficits, as it may
interfere with the growing of food crops. The use of productive land for growing fibre crops contributes to
a scarcity of land available for food production, potentially reducing local food availability which can, in
turn, lead to malnutrition. It has been calculated that in India, for example, 9 per cent of national
malnutrition is attributable to cotton cultivation, which occupies 8 per cent of the country’s arable land
(Ridoutt et al., 2019).
4

Despite their durability and lower impacts in the use phase, animal-based fibres and fabrics, such as silk
and wool from sheep, but also from cashmere and angora goats, alpaca, etc., generate a significant carbon
and land footprint during production due to their extensive use of land and methane emissions (Higg MSI,
2019; Lehmann et al., 2018). For animal fibres, recycling and fair trade initiatives have proved to have a
positive impact on land use (TextileExchange, 2018).
3.1.3 Greenhouse gas emissions
In 2015, greenhouse gas emissions from textiles production amounted to 1.2 billion tonnes CO2-eq, more
than international flights and shipping combined (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). These greenhouse
gas emissions occur all over the world and from many economic sectors, including agriculture, the textile
industry and the distribution sector. According to JRC (2014), 51 per cent of the total impact of textiles on
climate change occurs in the production phase, 44 per cent in the use phase, and 5 per cent is due to
transport. The climate change impact during the use phase is caused by the use of detergents, washing
drying and ironing, each contributing an equal share of around 25 per cent of the total impact from the
use phase.
The production of textiles is characterised by high greenhouse gas intensity of, depending on the fibre,
15–35 tonnes CO2-eq. per tonne of textile produced. This is much more than the 3.5 tonnes of CO2-eq.
needed for the production of 1 tonne of plastic, or 1 tonne of CO2-eq. for 1 tonne of paper (Eunomia,
2015).
Energy use in the production of raw materials and in the finishing of textiles are the main contributors to
climate change, with dye is the next most significant factor. The largest contributing fibre type to climate
change in the production phase is acrylic, followed by nylon and polyester, while silk has the least impact
(JRC, 2014). This reflects the higher impact of synthetic fibres compared to natural and recycled ones. For
example, it is estimated that substituting polyester with its recyclable counterpart, rPET, would reduce
CO2 eq. emissions by up to 40 per cent (TextileExchange, 2018).
The production of clothing, footwear and household textiles consumed in the EU generated total emissions
of approximately 334 million tonnes CO2-eq worldwide in 2017, equivalent to 654 kg CO2-eq. per European
citizen, making it the fifth largest, in terms of its climate change impact, amongst EU household product
groups. The textile supply chain generates around 30–50 per cent of the greenhouse gas emissions of the
housing, mobility and food supply chains (Figure 3.4). The global nature of the textile value chain is
highlighted by the fact that more 75 per cent of emissions related to the production of textiles consumed
by EU-households are released elsewhere in the world – the highest share of all household consumption
domains.

Figure 3.4 Estimated greenhouse gas emissions in the upstream supply chain ( 5) of EU
2017
Source: Exiobase v.3.4

3.1.4 Chemicals
Textile production processes make use of a large amount and variety of chemicals. The production of 1 kg
of cotton t-shirts, for example, requires about 3 kg of chemicals (KEMI, 2014). The use of dyes, both natural
and synthetic, are an important source of chemicals in textile production (Kant, 2012). In addition, many
chemicals are applied in the finishing steps to add certain properties, such as water and dirt repellents in
outdoor clothing, anti-wrinkle or stiffening additives and biocides to reduce bacteria-induced odours or
mould growth during transport and storage (ECHA, 2019).
While most substances used in textile production and found in finished products are safe, some are
substances of concern, which are restricted or banned under existing such EU legislation as the
Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (COM/2013/0656 final).
About 3,500 substances used in textile production have been identified, of which 750 are classified as
hazardous to human health and 440 to the environment. Two hundred and forty of these substances are
considered to be of high potential concern to human health and 120 to the environment (KEMI, 2014).
It is estimated that about 20 per cent of global water pollution is caused by textile dyeing and finishing
(Kant, 2012). The discharge of polluted waste water may affect the health of workers and local
5

communities that use affected water bodies for drinking, fishing and bathing (Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
2017).
Many chemical substances used in textile production have a detrimental effect on the health of workers.
Additionally, some of the chemicals used during manufacturing may remain, intentionally or
unintentionally, in the final textile products and impact the health of consumers. Allergic contact
dermatitis (ACD) can be induced by disperse dyes, finishing agents and some other textile auxiliaries such
as softeners, water repellents, flame retardants, formaldehyde, biocides and textile perfumes. Still, it is
difficult to draw clear conclusions on the prevalence of contact dermatitis from textiles, due to the limited
number of recent studies and a lack of data on concentrations (van der Putte et al., 2013). The European
Commission is currently looking into new labelling requirements that could inform consumers of materials
and chemicals used in textile products, demonstrate compliance with REACH and facilitate monitoring and
enforcement (COM/2013/0656 final).
Due to the long, complex and global nature of textile supply chains, it is difficult to keep track of all the
chemicals that have been used along the way (Swedish Chemical Agency, 2013). Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
plastics used in T-shirt prints, shoes and handbags contain softeners, such as phthalates, which have
hormone-mimicking properties and can interfere with the human reproductive system.
The EU has restricted or banned many hazardous chemicals that have been used in the textile industry for
years, such as certain phthalates, azo colours and dyes, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), chromium VI in the
tanning of leather for shoes and handbags, and dimethyl fumarate (DMF), a biocide used to prevent mould
(European Commission, 2009). In recent years, special attention has been given to fluorinated compounds,
such as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are extremely persistent and toxic.
These substances have oil and dirt repelling properties and are used as a surface treatment in many
consumer products, including such textiles as outdoor clothing, carpets and leather articles (Kotthoff et
al., 2015). An EU strategy aiming at reducing the use of PFAS is under development (Norström, 2018).
There is also a restriction on the use of substances classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for
reproduction (CRMs) in textiles, clothing and footwear (Regulation 2018/1513). France and Sweden have
submitted a proposal to restrict the placing on the market of textile, leather, hide and fur articles
containing skin sensitising substances (ECHA, 2019).
In recent years, plastic fibres from textiles have been shown to be a major source of microplastics entering
the environment through wastewater and diverse non-point sources. Despite uncertainty and a lack of
data, it is estimated that about half a million tonnes of plastic microfibres are released annually into the
ocean through the washing of plastic-based textiles, such as polyester, acrylic and nylon. As a result, it has
been estimated that the volume of plastic microfibres in the ocean could rise to more than 22 million
tonnes between 2015 and 2050 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). A Swedish study on emissions from
various textile types indicated that polyester fleece, loosely constructed and worn fabrics shed the greatest
amounts of microfibres. Specific solutions to reduce microplastics release from washing of synthetic fibres
are still at an early stage of development. To tackle microplastic release into the aquatic environment, a
voluntary cross industry agreement was formed by several industry players – the International Association
for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products (AISE), the Comité International de la Rayonne et des
Fibres Synthétiques (CIRFS), European Outdoor Group (EOG), Euratex and the Federation of the European
Sporting Goods Industry (FESI). The partnership has agreed to contribute to the development of
international standardised test methods to quantify the microplastics problem, to participate in industrial
research aimed at findings solutions and to share information and knowledge (Euratex, 2019a).
Washing clothes also causes emissions of chemicals into household wastewater, and from there into rivers
and water bodies, where they contribute to the pollution of water and sludge. Not only can the chemicals
themselves have hazardous effects, but also the degradation products that are formed over time or during
wastewater treatment can have adverse effects (de Campos Ventura-Camargo and Aparecida Marin-
Morales, 2013). Research shows that the concentrations of processing chemicals remaining in clothes

slowly decrease through washing, suggesting a slow chemical release along the use phase (Luongo et al.,
2015). Secondly, the use of detergents is an important source of release of chemicals into household
wastewater. Since 2013, the EU has restricted the use of phosphates in laundry detergents to reduce water
eutrophication (EU Regulation No 259/2012). However, as consumers often experience difficulties in fully
understanding dose instructions, the overuse of detergents still contributes to water pollution (Gwozdz et
al., 2017).
While chemicals not tightly bound to the fibres – residuals, impurities and additives – tend to be washed
out over time, persistent hazardous chemicals used during production can stay in the textiles throughout
their useful, even if they have been washed several times. In some cases, persistent chemicals are even
designed to remain, such as, for example, flame retardants in bedclothes or curtains. This can have
implications for possible recovery of the material content of the textiles for use in new products,
potentially leading to persistent chemicals remaining in products made from recycled materials (Schmidt
et al., 2016).
3.2 Social impacts
The textile value chain generates millions of jobs (paragraph 2.1), but the current dominant linear business
model industry also has a variety of detrimental social impacts, both globally and in Europe. The export of
large volumes of second-hand clothes from Europe, where supply is far greater than demand, to Africa
and the Middle East has negatively impacted the local textile industry (Šajn, 2019; Watson et al., 2016).
Or, the push to keep up with the speed and competitiveness of the market has been translated into poor
employment conditions throughout different parts of the supply chain, both in Europe and Asia.
The textiles sector often employs whole families that depend on their jobs as their sole source of income,
making them very vulnerable to exploitation. Workers often have little other choice than to accept
precarious working conditions, unfair payments and informal arrangements with minimal or no social
security. A study by the Clean Clothes Campaign estimated that in Central and Eastern European countries,
out of 1 million garment workers, approximately 350,000 work informally (Luginbühl and Musiolek, 2014).
In several European countries, garment workers are paid less than the legal minimum wage and have no
decent contracts ( House of Commons, 2019; Luginbühl and Musiolek, 2014). In order to increase their
daily/monthly earnings, these workers often have to work over-long hours, a common practice in both
Asian and European countries. Furthermore, this economic dependency has led to the utilisation of child
labour, most prominently in Asia. The International Labour Organization (ILO) (2018) estimates that
globally around 152 million children are engaged in child labour across sectors – 71 per cent of this global
child labour force is attributed to the agricultural sector, which includes cotton production.
A special characteristic of the textiles and clothing industry is the high share of female employees
throughout the garment supply chain. Due to the high share of informal labour, estimates of the
percentage of female employees globally vary between 40 per cent (Exiobase 3.4, 2011 data) and 75 per
cent (European Commission, 2017), with the latter being probably closer to reality. The majority of these
women occupy positions at the lowest levels of the supply chain, without much opportunity for
development, as opposed to the high-skilled, often managerial, and formal positions usually occupied by
men. The poor performance on gender equality and economic empowerment of women has been
documented in textiles supply chains both in Asia and Europe.
The unsafe physical and infrastructural working conditions to which workers in the garment industry are
exposed were tragically exemplified by the Rana Plaza textiles factory’s collapse in Bangladesh. This
catastrophic event, which resulted in the death of 1,134 employees, shocked the global community and
turned widespread attention on to the operation of the textile industry in Asia and worldwide (The

Guardian, 2015). Sadly, work accidents, stemming from unsafe physical infrastructure, are not uncommon
in the EEA geographical region ( 6) either (Luginbühl and Musiolek, 2014).
The complex supply chains within the textile industry make it particularly challenging to ensure
transparency and traceability in the sector. This adds to the challenge of controlling and addressing the
social issues. Auditing by monitoring agencies is often limited to the operations of first tier actors, while
actors further down the supply chain remain relatively invisible and are much more difficult to identify and
monitor (European Commission, 2017; Aets, 2016).
EU initiatives, such as the Blueprint for Sectoral Cooperation on Skills, aim to develop strategic cooperation
between key stakeholders within the textile, clothing, leather and footwear sectors. Additionally, it aims
to improve and upgrade skills in those sectors, create new training curricula and job opportunities, and
consequently improve of social conditions (Skills4Smart, 2019).
6
The EU, Norway, Swtizerland, Turkey and the UK

4 From a linear to a circular production and consumption system for textiles
4.1 Initiatives towards a sustainable textiles system
The fashion industry’s current take-make-dispose model is the root cause of the industry’s environmental
problems and economic value loss. Every second, the equivalent of one garbage truck of textiles is
landfilled or burned. If nothing changes, by 2050 the fashion industry will use a quarter of the world’s
carbon budget. Washing clothes releases half a million tonnes of plastic microfibres into the ocean every
year, equivalent to more than 50 billion plastic bottles (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017).
Following the increasing awareness of environmental and social impacts of textiles, initiatives are being
taken at different levels to make the their production and consumption system more circular and
sustainable. The European Commission has identified textiles, clothes and fabrics, as a priority product
category that has significant potential for circularity (EC, 2019). The new Commission President Ursula von
der Leyen made clear she “will propose a New Circular Economy Action Plan focusing on sustainable
resource use, especially in resource intensive and high-impact sectors such as textiles and construction”
(von der Leyen, 2019). Additionally, the 2018 Circular Economy Package and WFD contain a requirement
for all Member State to implement the separate collection of textiles by 2025 and to ensure adequate end-
of-life treatment. The fashion industry is also showing its potential in facing environmental and social
issues by starting to address specific challenges in their supply chains and processes (Box 4.1).
BOX 4.1 The Global Fashion Agenda
The Global Fashion Agenda (GFA), made up of a large number of partners including some of the world’s
leading textiles and fashion brands, is a leadership forum for industry collaboration on sustainability. Its
mission is guiding industry leaders in changing the way fashion is produced, marketed and consumed.
Among its activities are the annual Copenhagen Fashion Summit, the Youth Fashion Summit and the
publication of the CEO Agenda and the Pulse of the Fashion Industry report (Global Fashion Agenda, 2019;
Lehmann et al., 2019).
The CEO Agenda 2019, spells out eight priorities intended to make the industry more sustainable. In the
short term, focus is primarily on implementing measures to improve the efficiency of chemical, energy and
water use and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while improving supply chain traceability and working
conditions. In the longer term, more fundamental changes will be needed to transform the fashion
industry to a circular system, including embracing the opportunities of digitisation that use innovative,
sustainable fibres, and fair wages (Global Fashion Agenda, 2019). The 2019 update of the Pulse of the
Fashion Industry report shows, however, that progress slowed between 2018 and 2019, and that many
parts of the industry are yet to address sustainability concerns (Lehmann et al., 2019).
4.2 Envisioning a circular system for textiles
A circular system for textiles should provide access to high-performing textiles, fit for a wide variety of
applications, and to high-quality, affordable clothing, in line with people’s individual preferences.
In their publication A new textiles economy, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation describes a sustainable,
circular textiles system as a system “… that is restorative and regenerative by design and provides benefits
for business, society and the environment. A system in which clothes, fabric and fibres are kept at their
highest value during use, and re-enter the economy after use, never ending up as waste” (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2017). To achieve a sustainable and circular system, fundamental, systemic changes are
needed across the textile value chain. Pollution and waste should be designed out, while focusing on the
use of safe, renewable resources and energy and the regeneration of ecosystems by creating net positive

impacts, such as producing clean water from production processes. In addition, a circular system should
be socially just and distributive by design, so the added value generated is shared among all actors in the
textile ecosystem. Workers at all parts of the value chain should benefit from safe and just working
conditions, fair wages, gender equality and inclusivity. And finally, the environmental and societal costs of
materials and production processes should be reflected in the price of textile products (Ecopreneur.eu,
2019).
A shift towards a sustainable and circular textiles’ system requires a profound systemic change rather than
just small-scale initiatives and isolated success stories. A circular system requires innovative production
methods, new business models, more sustainable behaviour and supporting policy measures at all stages
of the value chain (Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1 Vision of a circular textiles system
Source: EEA and ETC/WMGE, adapted from EEA (2016)
Business model innovation is crucial to making a circular system for textiles viable. A business model
broadly describes the way business is done (Magretta, 2002) by illustrating how a business proposes,

creates, delivers and captures value (Richardson, 2008) for the business, customer and wider group of
stakeholders (Osterwalder et al., 2005). Circular business models aim to create viable business offerings,
while reducing the input of primary resources and the production of waste by, for example, focusing on
reusing products and materials (OECD, 2018). In doing so, they can reduce the environmental impact
associated with resource extraction, production and disposal. Circular business models for the textiles
include the sustainable production of natural and synthetic fibres, and safe additives and process
chemicals. It is also essential that textile value chains are transparent and traceable to guarantee clean
and safe material cycles.
The design stage is crucial in developing durable textiles made for longer use and reuse, repair or recycling,
while sustainable production processes should be resource and energy efficient and free of harmful
chemicals. Overproduction should be avoided.
In the use phase, the active lifetime of products should be prolonged by encouraging longer use and the
provision of adequate maintenance and repair services, while use intensity can be increased by
collaborative consumption – product reuse and shared use.
At the end of life, textile products can be reused as materials for the production of new yarn and textiles.
Efficient collection and recycling processes should be put in place, allowing high-quality, clean and safe
product and material cycles. Incineration and landfill of textiles should be eliminated.
In a circular business model, much closer collaboration is needed among companies, both downstream
and upstream in the value chain, and with customers than is typically the case in a linear system. To
support collaboration, circular value has to be created at all stages of a product’s value chain and lifecycle.
In addition, there must be ways to distribute value fairly among actors along the value chain, creating win-
win situations for all involved.
Although there have been many experiments within the textile production and consumption system, most
initiatives lack the transformative capacity to create significant disruption of the existing system (Buchel
et al., 2018). To achieve real impact beyond mere optimisation of the status-quo, circular business models
need to scale and achieve significant market penetration. Policy measures and regulations can be powerful
tools in enabling this, spurring the transition by promoting sustainable choices and models over
unsustainable ones. The European Sustainable Business Federation, Ecopreneur, has listed five pillars that
define policy instruments to accelerate the transition to a circular fashion and, by extension, textile
system: innovation policies such as subsidies and investment support; economic incentives including value
added tax (VAT) and other tax shifts; regulation, quality requirements and bans, for example; trade policies
such as import/export requirements; and voluntary actions including commitments and labels
(Ecopreneur.eu, 2019).
The implementation of the EU Circular Economy Action Plan – and the expected new action plan – which
includes product policies and other priorities at EU and national levels, provides opportunities to regulate
the production and consumption of textiles, foster innovation and enable more sustainable business
models. To move towards a more circular and sustainable system, regulation of textiles production and
consumption should go hand in hand with the industry developing more sustainable production processes,
encouraging more sustainable consumption and increasing the reuse and recycling of textiles. These
ambitions are, however, very challenging since if consumers lower their textile consumption by repairing
and reusing, this could potentially lower sales thereby decrease profits for certain actors along the value
chain. Shifting to sustainable production processes and fair working conditions may increase production
costs, while the internalisation of the costs of environmental impacts such as emissions and resource use
could increase prices for consumers. At the same time, a more circular way of working may allow cost
savings and better shared value among stakeholders in the value chain. Additional jobs and revenue
opportunities could also emerge through services such as renting, maintenance, repair and redesign, and
in collection, sorting and reuse activities.

4.3 Circular business models and policy options for textiles
Without aspiring to be exhaustive, the following sections give an overview of some initiatives that are
starting up, under development, or are options for business model and policy innovation. To ensure that
production and consumption of textiles are moving towards circularity in a coordinated and synergetic
manner, all actors in the textiles value chain need to change their behavioural patterns and ways of
thinking and working. Next to business and policy incentives, education and awareness building play a key
role in this process.
4.3.1 Choice of materials
The first choice to be made when developing textile products concerns the materials that are used in yarns
and fabrics. Different fibres are produced from different resources and thus have different environmental
and climate impacts. A cross-cutting issue concerning virgin as well as recycled fibre and fabric production
processes is the presence of substances of concern.
Sustainable fibre production
Strategies for moving towards more circularity and sustainability will vary between different fibre types.
In the case of natural fibres, such as cotton, attention should be given to the improvement of agricultural
practices to reduce the pressures on land and water resources. Apart from a large water footprint (Quantis,
2018), cotton farming also is a large user of fertilisers and pesticides, potentially polluting the surface and
groundwater through runoff. Sustainable cotton production would imply a more efficient use of water and
agrochemicals, a shift to the use of less toxic chemicals and the implementation of farming techniques
that conserve soils, such as composting, crop rotation and reduced tillage. Organic cotton is offered by
many clothing brands in response to the demand for more sustainable clothing. However, organic only
means that the cotton fibres have been produced according to organic farming practices; it does not
exclude the use of hazardous chemicals added during manufacturing or dyeing. Many consumers may not
realise that the organic label also does not concern other impacts, such as land use or greenhouse gas
emissions, which may be as high or higher than those of non-organic products. A downside of organic
cultivation is that it may reduce yields, leading to more land being used (Water Footprint Network, 2017).
In the case of synthetic fibres, such as polyester, environmental impacts are mostly related to energy-use
and the use of fossil resources as feedstock for production. Acrylic and nylon fibres have the highest energy
demand (Turley et al., 2009). By using recycled fibres, energy use and resource use can be significantly
lowered, providing both environmental and economic benefits. Recycling processes generally use less
energy than production processes for new materials. A study in Flanders calculated that fibre recycling of
clothing and household textiles could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8 per cent (OVAM, 2019).
Textile traceability and the absence of chemicals of concern are important preconditions to enable high-
quality and safe recycling. On the downside, recycling processes cause a deterioration of fibres over time,
limiting their reuse potential. Fibre blending, mixing different fibre types in order to obtain specific
properties, also makes fibre recycling difficult. To overcome this, fabric design could explore single fibre
options for products that are easier to recycle. At the same time, technological innovation, through the
development of durable, safe and recyclable materials or using a combination of reused and repaired
materials (Johnson and McCarthy, 2014), have the potential to reduce waste and resource use while
lowering costs.
Ecolabelling is a way to enable customers to differentiate between products on the basis of their
environmental and social impacts. It can provide reliable and transparent information to those consumers
who are interested in buying products made of sustainably sourced materials, even though they may be
more expensive. There is a wide array of labels used for textiles, initiated by public authorities, private
companies and trade associations. A key challenge, however. is that there is no common agreement on

criteria or metrics for circularity and sustainability but rather a proliferation of certification schemes and
labels using different approaches. An overview by Sinha and Hussey (2009) listed 42 labels used on textile
related products, which vary widely in their claims covering agricultural practices, labour conditions, use
of chemicals, greenhouse gas emissions, recycled content, etc., and this may confuse and even sometimes
mislead consumers. From a company perspective, the challenge is that eco-labels are often tedious and
expensive to obtain, which poses a barrier to many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
The EU eco-label, a flower, is a voluntary label covering criteria on durability – colour resistance and shrink
resistance; water use; limited use of hazardous substances; and reduced emissions to water and air during
production. The EU eco-label can play an important role in reducing the environmental impact and
increase circularity of textiles purchased in the EU.
In Northern European countries, the Nordic Swan eco-label for textiles is known for its stringency – the
criteria are especially strict on the use of chemicals (Suikkanen and Nissinen, 2017). Its latest revision
focusses on how textiles can contribute to the circular economy. This translates into a further focus on
prolonging the product lifetimes, take back systems, re-design and fibre composition. However, the share
of eco-labelled textiles compared to the total turnover of textiles is still very low, even in Nordic countries
(Eriksson, 2019).
To enable consumers to make conscious choices and raise demand for sustainable fibres, there is a need
for easy access to simple and standardised information on social, environmental and climate product
performance that is used across brands and products and controlled by an independent and trusted
source.
The textile industry itself has taken several voluntary initiatives to promote sustainability across its value
chain (Box 4.2).
BOX 4.2: The Higg Index
The Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC), representing clothing, footwear, and textile industry members,
has developed the Higg Index, which is used by more than 10,000 factories around the world. The index is
a suite of assessment tools that empowers brands, retailers and facilities of all sizes to measure their
impact on environmental and social dimensions and to identify areas for improvement at every stage of
their sustainability journey. The index has three modules: brand, facilities, and product. The brand module
measures, amongst other elements, the degree of transparency, environmental/social impact and
collaboration with manufacturers. The facilities module focuses on environmental and social measures
implemented by manufacturers. The product module provides general frameworks, to be utilised
especially by brands, to optimise the sustainability of design and material choices (SAC, 2014).
The SAC and its efforts have inspired many other industry initiatives. The Pulse Score was developed by
the Global Fashion Agenda, using the SAC’s Higg Index Brand and Retail Module as its underlying data
source, to detect patterns of key environmental and social impacts. The score is measured on a scale from
1 to 100, with values higher than 70 signalling a high level of sustainability (Lehmann et al., 2018). The
Pulse Score of the fashion industry was 32 in 2017, increased by 6 points in 2018, and by further 4 points
in 2019, to a value of 42. This shows increasing sustainability but slowing progress (Lehmann et al., 2019).
To stimulate producers to use recycled fibres, refunded virgin payments (RVP) schemes that resemble a
tax on virgin fibres could be effective to counterbalance the low market prices of virgin textile fibres. The
revenues could be refunded to the producers proportionally to the share of recycled textile fibres in total
production. Best performing producers thus could become net receivers of refunds, while
underperforming producers will be net payers. According to Elander et al. (2017) the effectiveness of RVP
mostly depend on setting the right charges and on a good level of transparency across the value chain in
reporting of use of virgin fibres.

Safe and clean materials
Chemicals used during textile production can stay present in products, but tend to leach out during use
and washing, posing potential health risks to users and the environment. The issue of residual chemicals
is an argument in favour of prewashing and buying second-hand clothing. As reused clothes have been
washed many times, fewer chemicals will be present in the fabric, making their use not only better for the
environment, and a consumer’s wallet, but also better for people’s health. Persistent hazardous chemicals
used during production can, however, stay in textiles to the end of their useful lives.
Recently there has also been a lot of attention on the problem of microplastic release to water bodies,
caused by the production, washing and waste handling of textiles made from synthetic fibres. Since few
viable alternatives are available to replace highly valued synthetic fibres, it is unlikely that synthetic textiles
will disappear from the market (Common Objective, 2019). It is therefore crucial that plastic microfibre
release from textiles is reduced drastically during production, use and end-of-life stages (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2017). It has been shown that polyester fleece, loosely constructed and worn fabrics shed the
greatest amounts of plastic microfibres. Smarter textile construction, prewashing and vacuum exhaustion
at production sites, and the use of more efficient filters in household washing machines (including
adequate filter cleaning procedures) and in wastewater treatment plants could help mitigate this problem
(Carney Almroth et al., 2018). Nonetheless, further research and knowledge on microplastics from textiles
is needed.
To create safe material cycles, substances of concern should be phased out from the design stage onward.
Continuous research is being carried out to reduce chemical use in the textile industry and substitute
hazardous ones with environmentally less hazardous options (Zhang et al., 2018). Printing textiles with
pigments rather than using dyes uses less water (Bomgardner, 2018). Many sustainable alternatives have
been developed to bond to fibre more easily, enabling savings in water and energy. Biological alternatives
to chemical dyes are being developed, though the cost of more sustainable dyes is a challenge for the
industry, due to its very low margins. Enzymes are also commercially used as chemical replacements as
they are highly specific and work under mild conditions (Madhu and Chakraborty, 2017).
A mind shift among product designers is needed to make the transition to the principle of safe by design
(Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited, 2018; EEA, 2017). Including sustainability
awareness in education and training is key. Additionally, cooperation between industry and public
authorities on quality and safety requirements is important to phase out chemicals of concern in
production processes and products.
An option to combining concerns about sustainably sourced, safe and high-quality materials is to develop
legally binding standards for textile products that are based on measurable criteria around, for example,
durability, agricultural practices, labour conditions, recycled content, use of chemicals, microfibre
leaching, durability and recyclability. Such standards could be set based on an analysis of existing voluntary
standards and certification schemes, including the EU's ecolabel. In addition, complementary voluntary
targets could be set, so frontrunners could have the opportunity to move ahead.
Additionally, better traceability in textile supply chains could allow companies to follow material and
production flows from the stage of fibre production up to the final product reaching the customer (UNECE,
2017). Traceability assures quality and compliance, mitigates fraud and engages each actor in the product
value chain to bear direct responsibility for their processes and activities. Setting up a traceability system
requires the collaboration of all stakeholders, as well as technical solutions, for example through
blockchain technology. Blockchain platforms can support verified and secure transactions, while recording
and storing information on raw materials used, production processes, sustainability certification and
product use, and can thus facilitate sustainable, safe and clean material loops for textile products (Rusinek
et al., 2018). This could not only allow producers to make better and more sustainable procurement

decisions but can also empower consumers to make more sustainable choices, while increasing trust in
recycled materials and second-hand products.
4.3.2 Design
The design stage is crucial in the development of a circular value chain for textiles. It is at this stage that
the choices are made significantly determine the environmental and climate impact of textile products, as
well as the potential for circularity in later stages of the product’s lifecycle. Not only is the choice of
materials important, so too is the way in which a product is conceived and assembled to encourage a long
life. In general, product design should aim to facilitate long use, reparability and reuse, as well as efficient
production processes with little waste and few emissions (Bauer et al., 2018).
Ecodesign
To enable consumers to use textile products for longer, it is important that products are designed for
longevity. This overall concept consists of three designs principles: design for durability, design for long-
lasting style and design for disassembly (Circular Fashion, 2019). The first aims to creating textile products
that are resilient to wear and tear and can withstand abrasion and washing. The choice of durable high-
quality fabrics and other components is key here, as well as the way seams are constructed in order to
withstand tearing out. The second principle considers users’ sensitivity to style and changing fashion. By
carefully selecting colours and styles that are regarded as timeless and appealing to a broad audience,
designers avoid items being disposed of because they are perceived to be out-of-fashion. Moreover,
timeless items retain a higher value on the second-hand market, encouraging longer use and reuse. Finally,
the way a textile product is assembled determines whether and how easily it can be taken apart to
facilitate maintenance, repair, component reuse and/or recycling. In this regard, design-for-disassembly
strategies choose stitching over gluing, avoid fusible interfacing by using blind hemming and use low
density stitching (Gam et al., 2011), so different parts can easily be taken apart in order to allow repair,
component reuse or recycling.
Adding a personal touch to clothes or household textiles could also be an option to encourage longer use.
Personalised designs have been found to increase a user’s emotional attachment to items, which can
stimulate consumers to maintain and repair, rather than discard (Mugge et al., 2005). Within this context,
new business models need to be developed and scaled that increase the role consumers can play in
production. The concept of a prosumer is emerging as a consumer involved in different phases of
production, such a design or reuse/recycling. Prosumer, a term introduced by Alvin Toffler in his book The
Third Wave (Toffler, 1980), combines producer and consumer to express the active role that consumers
could play in the design and manufacture of products. In the case of textiles, this relates to increased
interest in traditional handicrafts and personalized items.
Public authorities can play an important role in steering industry towards sustainable design and
production processes, aimed at long-lasting textiles that are free of chemicals of concern. The EU
Ecodesign Directive focusses on energy efficiency in energy-consuming products but little attention has
been given so far to material choices and circularity aspects. Based on ecolabelling and green public
procurement criteria, Bauer et al. (2018) propose a set of ecodesign requirements for textiles and furniture
that do take reparability and recyclability into account. The objective of these criteria is to increase the
active lifespan of textile products through, for example, durable fasteners, availability of spare parts,
colour fastness and fabric resilience; promote the use of recycled materials to offset virgin production
through recycled content thresholds; and reduce water and energy use during maintenance by, for
example, providing care and maintenance labelling. In July 2019, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s Make
Fashion Circular Initiative published a set of Jeans Redesign Guidelines (Box 4.3).

BOX 4.3 Jeans Redesign Guidelines
The Jeans Redesign Guidelines (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019) set out minimum requirements to
ensure jeans last longer, can easily be recycled and are made in a way that is better for the environment
and the health of garment workers. Health, safety and improvement of working conditions in global textile
manufacturing are prerequisites. Beyond this, the Guidelines provide minimum requirements for jeans on
durability, material health, recyclability and traceability.
Durability
- jeans should withstand a minimum of 30 home laundries, while still meeting the minimum quality
requirements of the brands;
- garments should include labels with clear information on product maintenance.
Material health
- jeans should be produced using cellulose fibres from regenerative, organic or transitional farming
methods;
- jeans should be free of hazardous chemicals and conventional electroplating. Stone finishing, potassium
permanganate (PP) and sandblasting are prohibited.
Recyclability
- jeans should be made with a minimum of 98% cellulose fibres by weight;
- metal rivets should be designed out, or reduced to a minimum;
- any additional material added to the jeans should be easy to disassemble.
Traceability
- information that confirms each element of the Guidelines’ requirements has been met should be made
easily available;
- organisations that meet the requirements will be granted permission to use the Jeans Redesign logo on
jeans produced in line with the Guidelines;
- Jeans Redesign logo use will be reassessed annually based on compliance with reporting requirements.
Ecodesign requires interdisciplinarity between designers, chemists, material developers, etc. and
education, both during professional education and in life-long-learning programmes for industry
professionals. A strong sustainability focus in designer education curricula could be a powerful lever to
spur a change in design culture. Educating designers in sustainable material choices and designs that are
timeless, durable and easy to repair could have a considerable impact. On the other hand, designers may
not have incentives or a mandate within a company to design for circularity (Bauer et al., 2018). To assure
effective implementation, it is important that the same mind shift takes place at the top management
level, at which financial and strategic decisions are taken.
The establishment of accessible knowledge hubs can support companies, entrepreneurs and start-ups that
want to implement sustainable and circular design principles in their products and business models
(Watson et al., 2017). By providing knowledge, technical expertise, tools, training and information on
existing circular business models, policy measures and funding schemes, these hubs can guide companies
in the development of their own circular product design and business strategies and reduce the risk of
failure. Moreover, such hubs can be instrumental in communicating and reinforcing the effect of other
policy measures, such as funding support and awareness raising campaigns.
4.3.3 Production and distribution stages
As it has been shown throughout this report, one of the biggest issues with mainstream business models
is that they rely on cheap mass production, mainly in Asia, and worldwide distribution channels. A

sustainable and circular production process should be resource efficient, avoid waste and overproduction,
while offering healthy products and fair working conditions. A shift to more local production, using digital
technology, could reduce worldwide shipping, while creating jobs within Europe.
Sustainable production
A large portion of the textiles consumed in Europe are produced elsewhere in the world, mostly in Asia, to
take advantage of low labour costs, but this also leads to significant environmental and social impacts.
Moving to more EU-based production would not only strengthen European manufacturing industry but
also reduce dependency on long-distance supply chains and the associated costs and impacts.
Modernisation and automation of the industry are needed to develop cleaner production processes, which
are less labour and resource intensive.
In a sustainable textiles system, resource-efficient production is a key element. Reducing production waste
and the energy, material and needs water of the sector, while switching to healthy and renewable
materials and energy at the same time, would reduce the environmental impact of the textile industry.
Additionally, to tackle the negative social impacts of the textiles industry, the wages and working
conditions of the workers need to be improved. This may increase the price of textile products, which in
turn may reduce consumption.
Automation of the sector holds opportunities for improving labour efficiency by providing innovative
technologies that can change labour-intensive steps such as those for sewing, patching and finishing of
products (Andersson et al., 2018). For instance, 3D knitting machines and/or techniques can produce
clothes without seams or sewing (Bain, 2018). Local production also offers the opportunity to make the
industry more circular. On the other hand, automation may also lead to shorter production cycles and
even faster fashion, while causing major job losses in producing countries – mainly in Asia. It is estimated
that increased automation could reduce labour needs by 26–46 per cent (Andersson et al., 2018). Manual
and labour-intensive production processes, however, have a role to play in a sustainable and circular
textile system. Since hand-made is valued in this industry, unique and artisanal products can encourage
customers to keep products in use for longer, and repair and reuse them. Many customers are willing to
pay higher prices for high-quality, handmade items, supporting job creation for artisans and such
handcrafters as repairing services both in Europe and abroad.
Overproduction is a significant issue in the fashion industry, generating enormous amounts of unused
clothing articles ending up as waste. Estimates on the percentage of clothing that is sold at discounted
prices, or is not sold at all vary widely (Wijnia, 2016). In general the industry states that a third of products
are sold at full price, a third sold in sales and the remaining third generate almost no revenue, takes up
space as dead stock and is eventually incinerated or landfilled (SITRA and Circle Economy, 2015). Part of
the solution to avoid overproduction could be to move from push to pull sales models and support
companies to deploy demand-driven production models.
The rapid rise of online retail has already caused a major change in the landscape of fashion brands and
retailers. Online platforms do not only enable the large retailers to reach their customers, but also offer
small manufacturers and even amateur artisans direct access to potential customers (Buchel et al., 2018).
Within the online shopping environment, the emergence of new digital technologies that aim to
virtualising the human-textile interactions – visualisation, touch, feel and fit – could change consumer
habits considerably in the future (Zimniewska et al., 2016), either enabling or inhibiting sustainable textile
and fashion consumption. In combination with further automatisation, reducing production time and the
emergence of new production technologies that allow greater flexibility and local, decentralised
production facilities, such as 3D printing and laser-cutting, digital technologies offer enormous possibilities
to ensure a closer connection with customer needs and preferences. The revaluing of manual craftmanship
can also play a role here, for example, in the creation of personalised items, enabling customer-led design

and upcycling (Section 4.3.2). Successful implementation of such models requires close communication
with the market, using big data and artificial intelligence to better predict consumer wants, needs and
tastes (BOF and McKinsey, 2017). These evolutions could drastically change fashion retail, and the wider
textiles sector as well. A close relationship between producer and end-user gives the garments a much
higher added value than that of mass-produced fashion, while avoiding overstocking as garments will only
be made after they are sold (Post-couture Collective, 2019). Such a strategy ensures that a higher
percentage of a collection would be sold full price, offering an opportunity for brands to improve profit
margins. Producing on demand, in local facilities close to the customer also reduces transport.
A better understanding of technological developments, as well as of current and future consumer

preferences and behaviours, is needed to improve policies and interventions that aim to make production
processes more sustainable and change consumer behaviour and lifestyles to more circular and
sustainable models.
The EU, with the Action Plan on Circular Economy (COM, 2015, 614), is committed to improving the
environmental performance of products, excluding dangerous products for the environment from the
European single market, while increasing visibility of environmental friendly products. In the field of
textiles production, an extensive body of EU policy instruments is already in place to stimulate and enforce
sustainable production: requirements, for example, have been set for textile fibre names and related
labelling, as well as for marking fibre composition in textile products (Regulation 1007/2011). The REACH
regulation sets chemical restrictions on textile products and production, while pollution and industrial
emissions are regulated through compliance with the reference document on best available techniques
(BREF) for the textile industry (currently under review) under the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). More
specifically, the EU Emission Trading System sets limits for greenhouse emissions. EU ecolabel criteria exist
for textiles and a number of producers have adopted the label. EU green public procurement (GPP) criteria
include requirements on sustainability for textiles. All these measures have the potential to influence
producers outside the EU, as they have to adapt to strict environmental performance rules to access the
EU market.
Through the Horizon2020 and LIFE programmes and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized
Enterprises (EASME), the EU is funding R&D and pilot experiments for textiles. The aim of these
programmes is to support sector-wide partnerships to develop technological innovation in production and
recycling, design new circular business models and foster collaboration among actors across the value
chain. To assure sufficient budget to facilitate these programmes, and especially the upscaling of
innovation to enable large-scale system transformation, advocacy is needed (Ecopreneur.eu, 2019).
As for many industrial sectors, the uptake of innovative technological solutions for production processes,
products and services by the textile and clothing industry is very challenging, since it consists of many SMEs
that lack investment power. Investment support for SMEs is needed to spur the adoption of new
technologies. At the European level, several innovation projects for textiles are in development within the
Smart Specialisation Platform on Industrial Modernisation. The aim of these is to build regional innovation
capacity across Europe, facilitate investment by SME’s and establish effective collaboration between
regional actors (European Commission, 2019). Subsidies may also be useful to encourage potential losers
in the transition to a circular economy, such as companies that are highly dependent on linear business
models, to turn their business activities around (Ecopreneur.eu, 2019).
Economic instruments, in the form of, for example, tax shifts from labour to resource use and
environmental impacts, offer interesting opportunities to influence market dynamics in favour of
sustainable textiles by internalising external costs. An important reason why most textile production still
works in an unsustainable way is the fact that the negative environmental and social impacts caused by
their production – transportation, use and waste management – are not reflected in prices. Cheap clothing
made of textiles which have high environmental impacts, for example, are sold for just a few Euros and as
a result they are sometimes only worn once or, at most, a few times. Producers are not required to pay

for the damage done to the environment and climate, for example from energy and chemicals use or water
pollution.
4.3.4 Use stage
Reducing the volume of textiles purchased can be part of lowering the environmental and climate impacts
of the textile system. By encouraging shared use, longer use and reuse, the need for textile products could
be fulfilled, while reducing the number of products that are purchased. As a consequence, the need for
resources, production and distribution would be reduced as well, avoiding the associated environmental
and climate impacts and the generation of waste. At the same time, the intensity of textile utilisation
would increase, as items would be used for longer, more often or by more people. This sets requirements
for material quality and product design, as textile products need to be more durable as well as easy to
maintain and repair. Additionally, the logistics services needed to support collaborative consumption
patterns and product redistribution pose new challenges to the textile distribution system that is currently
organised in a linear way.
Although some initiatives promoting circularity in textiles are starting to be successful, many others are
struggling to become profitable. Policy measures could support business viability by enabling profit making
and raising consumer awareness on the importance of increasing the active lifespan of textile products
through reuse and extending lifetimes. Moving to consumption patterns based on shared use, longer use
and reuse will require substantial behavioural change. Educating consumers on the environmental and
social impacts of textiles can effectively reduce environmental and climate impacts, as consumers are
unlikely to be aware of the full environmental and social impacts of the textiles they buy, due to the
complexity of global supply chains (EEA, 2014). Better knowledge about lifecycle pressures can encourage
behavioural change towards the more responsible consumption of textiles, such as buying less and from
more sustainable sources, choosing durable items, using items for longer, repairing, considering reuse and
selective disposal.
Shared use
Service-based offerings, such as the renting or leasing of clothing, furniture and carpets, can significantly
lengthen the active lifetime of textiles and in that way improve sustainability during the use phase.
Through these services, the same product is shared among multiple users, either for a short periods
(renting) or for longer ones (leasing). The ownership of the products stays with the company offering the
service – in business-to-business (B2B) or business-to-consumer (B2C) models – or with the individuals
who participate in sharing or swapping communities – consumer-to-consumer (C2C) models (Elander et
al., 2017).
Companies are increasingly looking into service-based business models to complement direct product
sales. The customer only pays for the use of the product, which can be cheaper than buying. But even if
the long-term cost of the service is higher, product-service systems can still be appealing since they offer
a high level of convenience: performance is guaranteed while maintenance, replacements and waste
disposal are often included in the service. In this way, leasing of carpet tiles, for example, provides a
convenient and waste-free solution for the user, as the responsibility of installing, replacing, take back and
responsible waste disposal is held by the carpet company or brand. Additionally, producers have an
intrinsic incentive to select materials and product designs that are maintenance-friendly, resistant to wear
and tear, easy to repair and durable. Also recyclability or the potential for subsequent reuse in different
applications can be an important asset to conserve value and avoid waste treatment costs (Lindström,
2019). In the case of carpet tiles, multiple companies offer leasing systems on the B2B market combined
with take-back programmes. These offer the customers affordable floor covering that can easily be
replaced, while the producers stay in control of their carpets and their end of life (Desso, 2019; Interface,
2019).

For clothing, many different sharing platforms are emerging to support shared use. A well-known example
are clothing libraries, which first appeared at the beginning of 2010s. A monthly membership/subscription
fee allows members to borrow a specific number of clothing items for a limited amount of time, typically
a few weeks. A handful of platforms exist in Germany, Netherlands, the Nordic countries and the UK. The
main clientele are mostly young women, living in an urban environment (Elander et al., 2017). Libraries
are especially attractive for renting designer clothing and garments for special occasions such as gala
dresses and fancy dress as well as for garments that serve for a short period of time, such as children’s and
pregnancy clothes.
Maintaining such a library with fashionable garments is a big investment and pay-back times are long as
consumers are often only prepared to pay small fees. A lifecycle assessment of a clothing library system
has shown that there are potential benefits per garment use of implementing clothing libraries so long as
the garments’ service life is prolonged, but it is important to achieve a substantial increase of service life
for environmental gains to occur as, for example, emissions caused by long transport distances can
outweigh the benefits of reduced consumption (Zamani et al., 2017). A main challenge for sharing systems
is acquiring new members or subscribers and in most cases the membership base is slow to develop.
Investment costs at start-up can be an important financial barrier, while operating costs – labour costs for
maintenance, repairs and logistics – are also significant. Often, sharing services are only profitable in
parallel with traditional retail models based on sales, or due to various support measures, such as
voluntary work (in the case of charities) or the provision of free materials (Elander et al., 2017).
Currently, the lack of market demand for circular products and services is a major barrier to the
implementation of circular business models (Ecopreneur.eu, 2019). The public sector can play an
important role in their development, breakthrough and scaling by purchasing and using such services or
implementing economic incentives such as reduced VAT or other taxes for renting, leasing and sharing
systems.
Green public procurement in the purchasing of textiles could pave the way for the scaling up of service-
based business models and increased awareness within society as a whole. The public sector in Europe –
including hospitals, schools and administrations – is a huge consumer of textiles. Examples include
uniforms and bed linen in hospitals, carpets and curtains in schools and public buildings, to name a just
few. Green public procurement is a voluntary instrument in the EU, used to varying degree in Member
States. In some countries, GPP has been used to increase demand for sustainable textiles, resulting in
demands for uniforms, bed linen, curtains and carpets produced in a way that lives up to green and
sustainability standards (European Commission, 2011). Circular product-service offerings could also be
encouraged in procurement procedures, for example, by taking the life-cycle cost of products, including
maintenance, repair, replacement and waste disposal costs, into account in tendering procedures.
Investment support to start-ups and SMEs setting up sharing systems and innovative business models
would also help overcome the financial barriers that many initiatives face. Smaller business often cannot
afford substantial investment to transform their own business models, while investors are reluctant to
take the risk of embarking in lesser known business concepts (Watson et al., 2017). Some EU initiatives
and pilot-projects are focused on supporting SMEs in the textile sector to adopt innovative technologies,
improve productivity and resource efficiency, and create high added-value niche-market products and
services, such as the recently launched ELIIT project (EASME/COSME/2018/013).
Apart from economic incentives and subsidies, legal adjustments are important for the development new
business models. Many current laws and regulations are based on traditional linear producer/consumer
relationships and do not take into account the possibility of collaborative consumption and new
relationships between producers and customers. For example, new regulations and agreements may be
needed to facilitate exchanging, sharing and co-owning products. Additionally, issues related to risk-

management in the case of shared use, such as warranties and liabilities, need to be solved (Kassan and
Orsi, 2012).
A shift to collaborative consumption patterns would require a mind shift from owning to sharing among
customers. Often, these models require customers to do make extra effort, such as making a reservation,
collecting and returning products or embarking in a leasing model, which might seem less convenient than
simply buying a product. Distribution costs may be involved if products are sent to the customer’s home,
which may also act as a deterrent (Watson et al., 2017).
Longer use
Longer active use of textile products reduces the need for new textiles and avoiding waste generation. A
study performed by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation pointed out that if the number of times a garment is
worn were doubled, and garment purchases and production were reduced by half as a consequence, the
greenhouse gas emissions of the textiles industry would be reduced by 44 per cent (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2017).
In order to last longer, textile products should be made more durable. Using designs based on durable
materials is an opportunity for companies to save in raw materials and reach new market opportunities
while improving environmental performance (Vezzoli et al., 2018; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017).
Adding durability claims to textile labels would provide users with useful information on fabric resilience
to washing, wear and tear and expected product lifetimes.
The trend and campaigns for slow fashion try to convince consumers to buy fewer clothes and to keep
them for longer. The idea embraces transparent supply chains, small-scale local production, high-quality
materials and trans-seasonal and durable garments. While reduced sales volumes are a desired
consequence of this approach, it raises some questions concerning affordability and profitability. A shift
to high-quality products is expected to result in higher prices for the consumer, at least at the point of
purchase. Business models based on leasing or sharing of high-quality and durable products could assure
more people with access to affordable, high-quality clothing. At the same time, the longer lifespan of
products might also lower the long-term cost of clothing by reducing the need for frequent replacements.
From a producer’s point of view, fewer sales might lead to reduced profitability, threatening the economic
survival of traditional business models that are based on fast fashion cycles and frequent sales. A shift
towards durability, however, opens up alternative opportunities for companies to build circular,
environmentally beneficial business models that rely on design for durability and design for repair, offering
maintenance and repair services to customers.
Product maintenance and repair are crucial to prolonging product life, but maintenance practices for
textile products, such as vacuum cleaning, washing and drying, and the use of detergents, all have an
environmental impact. Washing and drying of textiles result in significant water and energy use, and
release chemicals and micro-plastics into wastewater. Smarter textile construction, prewashing and
vacuum exhaustion at production sites, and use of more efficient filters in household washing machines,
including adequate filter cleaning procedures, and wastewater treatment plants could help mitigate this
problem (Carney Almroth et al., 2018). Additionally, environment-friendly maintenance guidelines should
be communicated to users, such as washing at full load and reducing temperatures, minimizing detergent
use and avoiding tumble-drying (EEA, 2014). Clear labelling and communication of maintenance
instructions should inform consumers that certain items, such as wool and jeans, do not have to be washed
very often, that drying can be done in the open air and that ironing is not always necessary (Clevercare,
2019). Maintenance services, such as laundry and cleaning services, can relieve users of maintenance
efforts – and owning the needed maintenance appliances – while offering business opportunities for
service providers and efficiency gains in the maintenance process.

Consumers are often reluctant to repair textile products, especially clothes, because of lack of time and
skills, and because of low replacement costs in comparison with the costs of repair. Taking an item to a
repair shop and collecting it afterwards can also be seen as inconvenient. Repair activities are generally
more attractive to older consumers (Armstrong et al., 2015). Some high-end fashion brands make
reparability one of their key selling propositions. These garments are designed to be easy to repair and
come with repair kits containing spare buttons, thread, patches and even a manual on how to carry out
repairs. Repair services are also sometimes offered by the brand itself or a third party together with the
possibility of returning worn out items so that they can be recycled (Goworek et al., 2013; Rissanen, 2011).
For repair services to become viable, it is important that repair costs decrease, for example through
favourable labour schemes or reduced VAT on repair services – Sweden has recently reduced VAT rates
for repair services, including textiles (Finansdepartementet Skatte- och tullavdelningen, 2015). This is a
way of contributing to making repair worthwhile and can significantly extend the number of times textiles
are used.
Strong awareness campaigns promoting longer use are also key, linked to convenient systems for
identifying and accessing repair shops, spare parts and repair instructions, so that people can easily choose
to repair. At the same time, do-it-yourself (DIY) skills, such as sewing, mending and darning, can be
revalued and practical courses made accessible. The Sustainable Apparel Coalition’s global consumer
research proved that consumers want to be part of a sustainable fashion revolution, have access to
information about their favourite brands and products to enable informed decision making, and also want
a better understanding of their own impacts in the use phase (SAC, 2019).
Reuse as a product
The reuse of textiles has considerable environmental benefits, as the impacts of the transport and
processing of used textiles are small in comparison to the savings caused by offsetting new textiles
production (Schmidt et al., 2016; EEA, 2014). A study in Flanders illustrated that reuse of clothing and
footwear can reduce primary raw material consumption by 24 per cent and the greenhouse gas emissions
of the textile value chain by 16 per cent, compared to 8 per cent for fibre recycling (OVAM, 2019).
Textiles can be re-used as a product through, for example, second-hand stores and informal giving, or as
material for up-cycling and recycling. Transactions mostly take place informally among friends and
relatives, formally in second-hand stores, or over online platforms. Reuse stores and platforms are most
common for clothing, often linking to the trend for vintage fashion. The terms swishing and swapping both
refer to a peer-to-peer exchange of clothing, facilitated by online platforms or events. Thrift shops typically
offer a significant amount of second-hand clothing, taking about 30–40 per cent of total revenues (De
Kringwinkel, 2019).
Sometimes a second-hand market is facilitated and enabled by companies or brands themselves. Some
clothing brands encourage consumers to return used garments to their stores, sometimes in return for a
discount on their next purchase. A distinction can be made between business models focusing on own
brand take back only, generally by high-quality or exclusive brands, or on general collection. In the case of
own-brand take backs, garments are often in good condition and are re-sold in dedicated second-hand
stores, while garments in poor condition are donated to charity organisations. In general collection
schemes, clothes are collected regardless of condition and donated to charity or sold on global markets
for reuse and recycling (Elander et al., 2017). Often charity organisations take part in the collection
logistics. Another common sales model, often used by independent second-hand shops, is sales on
commission. In this model, consumers bring used garments to the second-hand shop, which displays and
resells them. If the garment is sold, the owner receives typically 30-50 per cent of the sales price; items
that do not sell within a specified period, typically 1–3 months, are returned to the owner.
Despite being sold at lower prices, the overall transaction cost of second-hand garments increases
considerably when the time and effort consumers make to find a piece of clothing that suits and fits is

included, as second-hand retailers are typically located outside main shopping areas (Watson et al., 2015;
Svengren Holm and Holm, 2010). One promising option to improve the competitiveness of second-hand
stores is enabling them to locate in central shopping malls by renting space at reduced rates. This could
also stimulate regular clothing stores to allocate some of their space to second-hand sales (Watson et al.,
2017).
In the EU, the Seventh VAT Directive was enforced for avoiding double taxation of second-hand goods, as
they have already borne VAT when they were originally sold. As a consequence, second-hand sales are
taxed on the basis of the difference between the price at which the vendor bought the goods and the price
at which the vendor resells it, instead of on the full value. More far-reaching schemes could be set up for
implementing reduced VAT on second-hand sales, stimulating business based on reuse and supporting the
achievement of EU targets on reuse.
The EU WFD sets up one combined target for reuse and recycling, and some Member States are
establishing more specific reuse targets (RREUSE, 2016). By 2020, Spain, for example, aims to achieve 50
per cent preparation for re-use and recycling of all municipal waste, including 2 per cent preparation for
reuse of textiles, waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and furniture. France, within its
Extended Producer Responsibility Schemes for furniture and clothing, aims to increase the share of used
furniture and clothing put back on the market by social enterprises, with important impacts in providing
jobs and training opportunities.
4.3.5 Collection, recycling and waste treatment stages
Better collection, sorting and management of textile waste is fundamental to ensuring more reuse and
recycling and preventing waste from being incinerated or landfilled.
Collection
As touched upon in the previous section, different types of take back and collection systems have been
put in place by brands, charities or public authorities, with different objectives. While brand-specific take
backs are mostly aimed at high-quality product resales, general collection schemes aim at a combination
of reuse, recycling and waste treatment. Both private and public actors are active in textile waste
collection, and an important role is played by charities. Sorting the collected waste streams can be done
by the charity itself, or by third parties specialised in the manual and automatic sorting of textiles.
The development of large-scale separate collection systems, combined with manual and automatic sorting
processes, is a crucial step for improving textile recycling. New separation techniques and purification
processes on a molecular level would enable better handling of increasingly mixed fabrics. Moreover,
Europe could develop and deploy technologies that enable the traceability of the content of textiles in
respect of chemical additives, such as surface finishes, that remain in textiles at the end of the use phase
(Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited, 2018; Watson et al., 2016). This links to the
above-mentioned need for safe and clean material cycles and requires thoughtful planning at the design
stage. Used materials should not be polluted by the addition of other materials and chemicals that cannot
be separated at end of life. Reducing complexity and avoiding persistent chemicals, even in small
quantities, is key.
From the EU policy side, there is an obligation on EU Member States for the separate collection of textile
waste by 2025 (Directive (EU) 2018/851). But better collection is only one side of the coin. Once used and
waste textiles have been collected it is important to respect the waste hierarchy and ensure that as much
as possible is reused or recycled into other products. Article 10.4 of the WFD contains an obligation for
Member States to ensure that separately collected waste is neither incinerated nor landfilled. Additionally,
Art 9.d of WFD encourages the setting up of systems for repairing and reusing textiles.

Waste collection awareness campaigns could educate consumers about the importance of separate waste
textile collection. Brands often try to motivate customers to return old clothes by offering reduction
vouchers for new purchases, while charities communicate such aims as the provision of opportunities for
disadvantaged workers or support for families in need.
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is an instrument that has been introduced with a set of minimum
requirements (Directive (EU) 2018/851) to enable more circularity for different product types such as
plastics, WEEE, packaging, batteries, and end-of-life vehicles. The concept of EPR is that the cost of
managing a product’s end of life in an environmentally responsible way is born by the producer. Schemes
can take different forms, such as take or buy backs, or a recycling programmes, and producers are allowed
to delegate their responsibility to third parties. The result is that the responsibility for product end-of-life
management is put upon the industry, instead of the government.
France is the only country to date to implement an EPR policy for end-of-use clothing, linen and shoes.
This EPR policy has contributed to a 150 per cent increase in the collection rate of post-consumer textiles
since 2007, which is estimated to be about 35 per cent of all textile waste generated in France. About 60
per cent of the collected waste is reused, although only 4 per cent is considered for high-value reuse on
Western markets; about 30 per cent is recycled, mainly in south-east Asia; and 8 per cent is incinerated.
The French system has, however, also had a number of challenges. The target of 50 per cent textile waste
collection has not yet been reached, showing that awareness building is still needed among consumers
and retailers. On the financial side, economic support is needed to sustain the system as the revenues
alone are not sufficient to cover the costs of collection and sorting. At the same time, the efficiency and
viability of different sorting installations is not transparent due to confidentiality issues and seems to vary
significantly between installations. Additionally, a lack of recycling outlets is expected to form an obstacle
to the treatment of increasing volumes, especially if exports of low-grade reusable textiles decrease
(Aujollet et al., 2018).
The argument for EPR is that it facilitates collaboration between different actors and, if designed well,
encourages upstream effects, such as conscious material choices and design-for-recycling efforts (EEA,
2014). If companies are given the responsibility for their textiles after their use, then they will have to
make sure that they are collected and can be managed in a responsible way. In practice, this could be
managed either by the companies themselves, or through others designated to set up appropriate
schemes. Well-designed EPRs for textiles could both lead to better management of textile waste and to
changes in the design and production of textiles in a way that improves their recyclability and the reuse of
fabrics. The impact of EPR schemes under consideration, however, needs to be assessed to evaluate and
ensure their effectiveness. A key challenge is that the system can face economic difficulties that can only
be partly covered by a tariff collected from retailers (Bukhari et al., 2018).
Reuse as material
If clothes, household or other textile products cannot be reused, an option is to prepare the fabric for re-
use. A typical application for waste clothes is to cut them up into industrial rags and cleaning cloths. Fabric
reuse can also be used to upcycle products for certain niche markets. The practice of upcycling is that pre-
and post-consumer waste materials are reused to create a totally new and better product, often with an
artistic and original twist. Some waste textiles. For example, are combined in original combinations to
redecorate old furniture. Upcycling is often done as a handicraft activity by creative individuals, but some
professional designers are also embracing upcycling activities as a key approach to design of contemporary
furniture and other objects. For example, in the production of children’s clothing, reused fabrics, such as
hotel linen and terry cloth, can offer the special advantage that they have been washed countless times,
making them soft and low in residual chemicals (Stormie Poodle, 2019). Some workshops and social
initiatives also create new products and accessories from reclaimed fabrics – publicity textiles, such as
flags and banners for events, are readily available from event agencies and city councils and can be easily

transformed into toilet bags, pencil cases and bicycle bags (Flagbag, 2019), while worn-out tarpaulins can
be transformed into travel bags and backpacks (Freitag, 2019). In Europe, these initiatives often focus on
local production and social employment to minimise transport and labour costs and make them viable
business models. As the market price of these products is often a major barrier, the best deal is when a
company buys upcycled products made from their own discarded materials.
If textile fabric reuse is not possible, then high-quality fibre recycling can be an option through yarn
respinning. In order to facilitate fibre recycling, the development of smart sorting solutions for material
identification is needed, as well as systems that can detect the presence of potentially hazardous
chemicals. Processing mixed post-consumer textiles into homogenous fibre fractions would enable higher
value recycling of the mixed material flow. Automated sorting technology, able to sort large volumes of
mixed post-consumer textiles based on material composition, is being piloted and demonstrated in
Europe, for example, through the EU Fibresort project. Such sorting solutions include spectrometric
sensors that could be developed further for colour separation.
Another solution is to combine recycled fibres with high-quality virgin materials into a sandwich structure,
consisting of two layers: one layer of 100 per cent virgin material and second layer of up to 80 per cent
textile waste. Such innovative materials can replace traditional textiles in several industrial products (Toom
Tekstiil, 2019). Additionally, processes are in development for the chemical recycling of cotton and
polyester mixes (polycotton), in which the components are dissolved and fractionated; the cotton is turned
into new viscose filaments and the polyester into new monomers (de la Motte and Palme, 2018). The
global non-profit organisation Textile Exchange forecasts that 20 per cent of all polyester will be recycled
by 2030 (TextileExchange, 2018).
Despite these developments, the high cost associated with fibre sorting and the limitations of mechanical
and chemical recycling technologies are regarded as an obstacle to scaling up (Euratex, 2019c). The
challenge for textile recycling is to turn it into a commercially viable business. Investment funding and
support, backed up by legislative measures to stimulate the market demand for recycled fibres, could help
to overcome this, but to generate good quality outputs even advanced sorting technologies will ultimately
depend on the recyclability of products.
Some brands are marketing the use of recycled fibres as a value proposition to customers that are
motivated by environmental concerns. Examples are numerous in the clothing industry, with the reuse
and recycling of waste materials into new products, such as jeans or felt, closing the circle from pre-
production design to end of life (BNP, 2019; HNST, 2019; Wolkat, 2019). Nonetheless both economic
instruments such as GPP and such legal ones as targets for recycling and recycled content and quality
requirements for recycled fibres could be used to stimulate demand and help develop a market for
products made from recycled fibres (Euratex, 2019c). Markets for low-quality downcycled materials such
as insulation materials will, of course, continue to exist.
Waste prevention
All the above strategies ultimately have the goal of reducing the amount of textile waste that is produced
by reducing the use of resources and reusing textile products. Waste prevention involves re-thinking
product design and development, waste collection, sorting and recycling (Koszewska, 2018). Awareness
raising aimed at waste prevention should be combined with regulatory instruments, such as taxes or bans
on incineration and landfill of reusable textile waste. Although textiles are not mentioned explicitly, a ban
on landfill of separately collected waste materials is included in the revised EU Landfill Directive, implying
that separately collected textile waste is not allowed to be landfilled. Also, by 2030, Member States must
endeavour to ensure that all waste suitable for recycling or other recovery is not sent to landfill (EU, 2018).
Clear end-of-waste criteria for textiles would improve the management of textile waste and open up
possibilities for the production of valuable recycled materials for further use. Since textiles are often

complex and made up of different fibre types, clear definitions are needed to define when a textile waste
ceases to be waste (Euratex, 2019c).

5 Conclusions
Textiles play an important role in European manufacturing industry, trade and retail, contributing
considerably to economic growth and job creation within Europe and abroad. On the other hand,
European textile production and consumption patterns generate significant and growing negative
environmental and social impacts in Europe and other regions of the world. These include wasteful
resource use, ecosystem pollution through eutrophication and the dispersal of hazardous chemicals,
contributions to climate change and competition for land and water. Since a large share of textile
production occurs outside Europe, with little transparency on where and how products are produced, most
environmental and social pressures remain invisible to the European consumer.
Textiles production, labelling and marketing in Europe is regulated through EU and national legislation (EC,
2019b). An elaborate body of EU policy instruments is already in place to encourage and enforce
sustainable textile production in Europe, such as the REACH regulation, the Industrial Emissions Directive
(IED), the Ecodesign Directive, EU ecolabelling, etc. Furthermore, the 2018 revision of the EU WFD includes
an obligation to separately collect textiles by 2025 (EC, 2019a). Nevertheless, the challenge we face today
is that the system of production and consumption of textiles is still a largely linear one. Fibres are almost
completely made from virgin feedstock, from both natural and fossil resources. Production trends have
evolved towards fast-moving fashion products with an increasing share of synthetic and mixed fabrics.
Consumption trends show a tendency towards more and cheaper products with shorter lifetimes. Reuse
of textile products is limited, especially within Europe. Most used textiles are exported for reuse outside
Europe or for recycling into lower-value applications. High-quality recycling is virtually non-existent. A
large share of used textiles is still incinerated or landfilled.
Its linear value chain makes the textiles value chain one of the most polluting and resource-intensive
production and consumption systems, especially in the production and use phase.
Materials and water depletion, land use, climate change and chemicals’ toxicity are only some of the
environmental impacts to which the textiles sector contributes significantly. Among all consumption
domains in the EU, consumption of clothing, footwear and household textiles is the fourth highest pressure
category for primary raw materials use and for water use, after food, housing and transport, and the fifth
highest for greenhouse gas emissions. The land area used to produce the textiles consumed in Europe,
mainly cotton, is exceeded only by that for food production. The vast majority of the pressures and impacts
related to the consumption of clothing, footwear and household textiles in Europe are generated in other
regions of the world, where most of the production takes place. This is the case for 85 per cent of primary
raw materials used, 92 per cent of the water used, 93 per cent of the land used and 76 per cent of
greenhouse gas emissions.
From these figures it is clear that fibre cultivation for textiles potentially competes with food production
or other industrial crops for arable land, leading to increasing deforestation, food scarcity and
malnutrition. Apart from greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, pollution caused by fertiliser use
during cultivation and the use of hazardous chemicals during processing is an important threat to
ecosystem health and biodiversity. Additionally, it is estimated that more than half a million tonnes of
microplastics are annually discharged into the world’s oceans as a result of washing of plastic-based textile
products (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017).
Currently, many efforts are still being made to further optimise of the current linear system. A shift to a
circular system for textiles requires a fundamental systemic change throughout the whole value chain of
textiles supported by adequate policies. Not only is technological innovation needed to improve efficiency
and reduce environmental impacts, but profound social innovation and advancement in terms of working
conditions, equality and social justice are also needed, as well as a change to new business models and
policies and the provision of better information that enables and encourages consumers to make
sustainable choices.

Everything starts with the material and design choices made. These choices greatly affect product lifetimes
and reparability and the potential for creating safe product and material cycles at the end-of-life phase.
The phasing out of substances of concern is a key precondition, requiring adequate regulation and control.
A change in the attitude of both consumers and producers towards durability, repair, reuse and recycling
is key for generating the environmental and economic benefits that circularity entails. New circular
business models can play an important role in making sustainable choices more attractive. Service-based
models, such as the leasing of clothing or carpets, can encourage more durable and repairable designs or
the use of recyclable materials. Transparent labelling can also enable consumers to make more sustainable
choices and gives recyclers vital information. It is essential to organise the effective collection of used
textiles, together with high-performing sorting procedures and processing technologies to support
product reuse and fibre recycling. The development of well-functioning markets for used textile products
and recycled fibres is a key challenge.
The EU’s prioritisation of textiles in developing a circular economy would be instrumental in capturing the
economic, social, environment and climate benefits of a circular system for textiles. Circular solutions can
be supported by regulation and policy options addressing materials and design, production and
distribution, use and reuse, collection and recycling. By implementing suitable policy instruments,
authorities and the public sector can play an important role in supporting innovation, upscaling circular
initiatives and designing new business models, while phasing out current unsustainable practices. This can
be done by introducing economic and other incentives, such as, for example, EPR schemes, circular public
procurement procedures and tax or VAT reductions to promote sustainable choices. In addition, the
transition to a circular system for textiles could be accelerated by deploying policies aimed at technological
and business model innovation, such as R&D subsidies, training programmes and investment support for
SMEs. Voluntary action by the textile industry itself should also be promoted, as these encourage
stakeholders to collaborate across the entire value chain.
Apart from incentives, regulatory action is also needed to enforce quality, safety and durability standards,
circular design requirements, and to establish value chain transparency and traceability. At the end-of-life
stage, separate textile waste collection targets, policies on the waste trade and bans on incineration and
landfill would support the development of reuse and recycling.

Annex
The global distribution of pressures and effects related to final the consumption of textile products have
been calculated using an extended multiregional input model based on EXIOBASE v.3.4 data (Stadler et al.,
2018). For this purpose, environmentally extended product-by-product tables were used. The calculation
started from the following identities:
𝑥𝑥 = 𝐴𝐴 ∙ 𝑥𝑥 + 𝑦𝑦 (1)
where x is the total output vector, A the matrix of direct input coefficients (or matrix of technological
coefficients), and y is the final demand vector. Solving the model for output gives (Miller and Blair, 2009):
𝑥𝑥 = (𝐼𝐼 − 𝐴𝐴)−1 ∙ 𝑦𝑦 = 𝐿𝐿 ∙ 𝑦𝑦 (2)
where I is the identity matrix, and L the Leontief inverse also known as the multiplier matrix or matrix of
direct and indirect output requirements per unit produced for final demand. The Leontief model implies
the following assumptions: prices are fixed in the short term, input coefficients are constant regardless of
output or final demand level changes, structure of the economy is taken to be constant, at least in the
reported period.
The direct environmental effects of national production are the result of the sum of the direct effects
associated with each unit produced in each industry:
𝑒𝑒 𝑇𝑇 = ∑𝑛𝑛1 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖 = ∑𝑛𝑛1 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ∙ 𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛 = < 𝑒𝑒 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 >∙ 𝑥𝑥 (3)
By multiplying the environmental pressure per output unit (measured in physical units per Euro worth of
output) by the total output of each industry (measured in Euro), defined by equation (2), an
environmentally extended input-output model is created:
𝑒𝑒 𝑇𝑇 =< 𝑒𝑒 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 >∙ 𝑥𝑥 =< 𝑒𝑒 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 >∙ (𝐼𝐼 − 𝐴𝐴)−1 ∙ 𝑦𝑦 (3)
where eT is the vector of total environmental pressures associated with the corresponding amounts of the
products groups finally used (vector y) and eint the environmental pressure intensity vector. Each element
of eint represents the amount of the environmental pressure directly caused by the production of a product
group. Each element of eint in Exiobase is allocated to a region, which allows to derive the EU-28 share of
generated gross value added, employment, raw material use, water use, land use and greenhouse gas
emissions in the total footprint.
In Figures 2.5, 2.6, 3.2, 3.3, 3-4 and 3.5 we combined the 2011 Exiobase data with 2017 household
consumption data from Eurostat.

References
Aets, 2016, Study on the responsible management of the supply chain in the garment sector.
Andersson, J., Berg, A., Hedrich, S., Ibanez, P., Janmark, J. and Magnus, K.-H., 2018, Is apparel
manufacturing coming home?, McKinsey & Company.
Armstrong, C. M., Niinimäki, K., Kujala, S., Karell, E. and Lang, C., 2015, 'Sustainable product-service
systems for clothing: exploring consumer perceptions of consumption alternatives in Finland', Journal of
Cleaner Production 97, 30–39 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.046).
Aujollet, Y., Legrand, H., de Jouvenel, M. and Louviau, P., 2018, Avenir de la filière REP de gestion des
déchets de textiles, linge de maison et chaussures (TLC).
Bain, M., 2018, 'The high-tech future of fashion manufacturing' (https://qz.com/1356087/the-high-tech-

future-of-fashion-manufacturing/) accessed 2 April 2019.
Bauer, B., Watson, D., Gylling, A., Remmen, A., Hauris Lysemose, M., Hohenthal, C. and Jönbrink, A.-K.,
2018, Ecodesign Requirements for Textiles and Furniture., Nordic Council of MInisters, Copenhagen.
Bauer, B., Watson, D., Gylling, A., Remmen, A., Hauris Lysemose, M., Hohenthal, C. and Jonbrink, A.-K.,
2018, Potential Ecodesign Requirement for Textiles and Furniture.
Beasley, J. and Georgeson, R., 2014, Advancing resource efficiency in Europe. Indicators and waste policy
scenarios to deliver a resource efficient and sustainable Europe., European Environmental Bureau,
Brussels.
BNP, 2019, 'BNP Brinkmann' (http://www.bnp-brinkmann.de/) accessed 17 June 2019.
BOF and McKinsey, 2017, '10 Trends That Will Define the Fashion Agenda in 2018 | Intelligence | BoF'
(https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/intelligence/10-trends-that-will-define-the-fashion-
agenda-in-2018) accessed 13 February 2019.
Bomgardner, M., 2018, These new textile dyeing methods could make fashion more sustainable., Chemical
& Engineering News.
Brooks, A., 2015, Clothing Poverty. The hidden world of fast fashion and second-hand clothes., Zed Books,
London.
Buchel, S., Roorda, C., Schipper, K. and Loorbach, D., 2018, The transition to good fashion, DRIFT.
Bukhari, M., Carrasco-Gallego, R. and Ponce-Cueto, E., 2018, 'Developing a national programme for textiles
and clothing recovery', Waste Management & Research 36(4), 321–331.
Business Beyond Borders, 2017, 'Road to Texworld: 10 facts about the EU textile industry'
(http://www.businessbeyondborders.info/road-to-paris-10-facts-about-the-eu-textile-industry/)
accessed 6 May 2019.
de Campos Ventura-Camargo, B. and Aparecida Marin-Morales, M., 2013, 'Azo Dyes: Characterization and
Toxicity– A Review', Textiles and Light Industrial Science and Technology (TLIST) 2(2).
Carney Almroth, B., Åström, S., Roslund, L., Petersson, H. and Johansson, M., 2018, 'Quantifying shedding
of synthetic fibers from textiles; a source of microplastics released into the environment', 25(2), 1191–
1199.

CBI, 2018, 'Which trends present opportunities and threats on the European apparel market? | CBI - Centre
for the Promotion of Imports from developing countries' (https://www.cbi.eu/market-
information/apparel/trends) accessed 13 February 2019.
CBRE, 2013, How we shop - inside the minds of Europe’s consumers, CBRE.
Chapagain, A. K., Hoekstra, A. Y., Savenije, H. H. G. and Gautam, R., 2006, 'The water footprint of cotton
consumption: An assessment of the impact of worldwide consumption of cotton products on the water
resources in the cotton producing countries', Ecological Economics 60(1), 186–203 (DOI:
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.11.027).
Circular Fashion, 2019, 'Design for longevity' (https://circularfashion.com/key-principles/design-for-

longevity/) accessed 27 September 2019.
Clevercare, 2019, 'How to reduce climate impact, effort and money caring for fashion the clever way.'
(http://www.clevercare.info/en) accessed 9 March 2019.
Common Objective, 2019, Fibre Briefing: Polyester.
De Kringwinkel, 2017, De Kringwinkelsector in 2017.
De Kringwinkel, 2019, Thrift shop sales.
Desso, 2019, 'Carpet Leasing' (http://www.desso-businesscarpets.com/services/carpet-leasing/) accessed

17 June 2019.
EC, 2019b, 'Textiles and Clothing Industries' (https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/fashion/textiles-

clothing/).
EC, 2019, Sustainable products in a circular economy – towards an EU product policy framework
contributing to the circular economy, European Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2019) 92 final.
ECHA, 2019, 'Clothes and textiles' (https://chemicalsinourlife.echa.europa.eu/clothes-and-textiles)

accessed 5 June 2019.
Ecopreneur.eu, 2019, Circular Fashion Advocacy. A strategy towards a circular fashion industry in Europe.
EEA, 2014, Environmental Indicator Report 2014.
EEA, 2016, Circular economy in Europe: Developing the knowledge base.
EEA, 2017, Circular by design — Products in the circular economy, EEA Report 6/2017, European
Environment Agency.
EEA, 2018, 2018, Waste prevention in Europe: policies, status and trends in 2017, Publication.
Elander, M., Tojo, N., Tekie, H. and Hennlock, Magnus, 2017, Impact assessment of policies promoting
fiber-to-fiber recycling of textiles.
Elander, M., Watson, D. and Gylling, A. C., 2017, Evaluation of business models for increased reuse,
collective use and prolonged life time of textiles.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017, Circular Fashion - A New Textiles Economy: Redesigning fashion’s
future.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019, 'Make Fashion Circular launches the Jeans Redesign', 16 July 2019
(https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/news/make-fashion-circular-launches-the-jeans-redesign)
accessed 27 September 2019.
Eriksson, U., 2019, Ecolabel Svanen.
EU, 2018, Directive (EU) 2018/850 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018
amending Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste (text with EEA relevance), OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, p.
100-108., 32018L0850.
Eunomia, 2015, The Potential contribution of waste management to a low carbon economy.
Euratex, 2019a, 'Cross Industry Agreement' (https://euratex.eu/cia/) accessed 10 April 2019.
Euratex, 2019b, Key Figures 2018 - The EU-28 Textile and Clothing Industry in the year 2018.
Euratex, 2019c, Prospering in the circular economy.
European Commission, 2009, 'Press release - Consumers: EU to ban dimethylfumarate (DMF) in consumer
products, such as sofas and shoes' (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-09-190_en.htm) accessed 5
June 2019.
European Commission, 2011, Green Public Procurement - Textiles - Technical Background Report.
European Commission, 2017, COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT: Sustainable garment value
chains through EU development action.
European Commission, 2019, 'Smart Regional Investments in Textile Innovation'

(https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/textile-innovation) accessed 10 January 2019.
Eurostat, 2019a, 'EU trade since 1988 by HS2-HS4'

(http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=DS-016894&lang=en) accessed 28 October
2019.
Eurostat, 2019b, 'Final consumption expenditure of households by consumption purpose - COICOP 3 digit,
nama_10_co3_p3'
(http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nama_10_co3_p3&lang=en) accessed 28
October 2019.
Eurostat, 2019c, 'HICP (2015 = 100) - annual data (average index and rate of change)'
(http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=prc_hicp_aind) accessed 28 January 2019.
Eurostat, 2019d, 'Total production by PRODCOM list (NACE Rev. 2) - annual data [DS-066342]'
(http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=DS-066342&lang=en) accessed 10 April
2019.
Farrant, L., Olsen, S. I. and Wangel, A., 2010, 'Environmental benefits from reusing clothes', The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 15(7), 726–736 (DOI: 10.1007/s11367-010-0197-y).
Fashion Revolution, 2018, Consumer Survey Report, Fashion Revolution.
Finansdepartementet Skatte- och tullavdelningen, 2015, Skattefrihet för ideell second hand-försäljning.
Flagbag, 2019, 'Bags from flags' (http://flagbag.be/) accessed 17 June 2019.

Freitag, 2019, 'Freitag' (https://www.freitag.ch/en) accessed 17 June 2019.
Gam, H. J., Cao, H., Bennett, J., Helmkamp, C. and Farr, C., 2011, 'Application of design for disassembly in
men’s jacket: A study on sustainable apparel design', International Journal of Clothing Science and
Technology 23(2–3), 83–94 (DOI: DOI 10.1108/09556221111107289).
Gittleson, K., 2018, 'Used clothes: Why is worldwide demand declining?', 31 January 2018
(https://www.bbc.com/news/business-42777804) accessed 10 April 2019.
Global Fashion Agenda, 2019, CEO Agenda 2019.
Goworek, H., Hller, A., Cooper, T. and Woodward, S., 2013, 'Consumers’ attitudes towards sustainable
fashion — clothing usage and disposal', in: Sustainability in fashion and textiles: Values, design, production
and consumption, Greenleaf, Sheffield, UK.
Gray, S., 2017, Mapping clothing impacts in Europe: the environmental cost, ECAP/WRAP.
Gunther, M., 2016, 'Fast Fashion Fills Our Landfills' (https://daily.jstor.org/fast-fashion-fills-our-landfills/)

accessed 13 February 2019.
Gwozdz, W., Nielsen, S. K. and Müller, T., 2017, 'An Environmental Perspective on Clothing Consumption:
Consumer Segments and Their Behavioral Patterns', Sustainability 9(762) (DOI: 10.3390/su9050762).
HNST, 2019, 'Premium jeans, radicaal anders.' (https://www.letsbehonest.eu/) accessed 17 June 2019.
House of Commons, 2019, Fixing fashion: clothing consumption and sustainability.
Hvass, K. K. and Pedersen, E. E. G., 2019, 'Toward circular economy of fashion', Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management 23(3), 345–365 (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-04-2018-0059).
ICAC, 2019, Facts on global fiber consumption trend 1960-2016.
ILO, 2018, Clear Cotton. Eliminating Child Labour and Forced Labour in the Cotton, Textile and Garment
Value Chains: An Integrated Approach, International Labour Organization.
Interface, 2019, 'Interface website' (https://www.interface.com/) accessed 17 June 2019.
Johnson, M. R. and McCarthy, I. P., 2014, 'Product recovery decisions within the context of Extended
Producer Responsibility - ScienceDirect', Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 34, 9–28.
JRC, 2014, Environmental improvement potential of textiles (IMPRO‐Textiles), JRC Scientific and Technical
Reports, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.
Kant, R., 2012, 'Textile dyeing industry an environmental hazard', Natural Science 4(1), 23–26 (DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ns.2012.41004).
Kassan, J. and Orsi, J., 2012, 'The Legal Landscape of the Sharing Economy', Journal of Environmental Law
& Litigation 27(1).
KEMI, 2014, Chemicals in textiles – Risks to human health and the environment, 6/14, Swedish Chemicals
Agency, Stockholm.
Kooistra, K. and Termorshuizen, A., 2006, 'The sustainability of cotton: consequences for man and
environment.', Report 223, Wageningen University.

Koszewska, M., 2018, 'Circular economy - challenges for the textile and clothing industry', Autex Research
Journal 18(4), 337–347 (DOI: 10.1515/aut-2018-0023).
Kotthoff, M., Müller, J., Jürling, H., Schlummer, M. and Fiedler, D., 2015, 'Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
substances in consumer products', Environmental Science and Pollution Research 22(19), 14546–14559
(DOI: 10.1007/s11356-015-4202-7).
Lehmann, M., Arici, G., Boger, S., Martinez-Pardo, C., Krueger, F., Schneider, M., Carriére-Pradal, B. and
Schou, D., 2019, Pulse of the Fashion Industry 2019 Update.
Lehmann, M. et al., 2018, Pulse of the Fashion Industry, Global Fashion Agenda.
Lindström, 2019, 'New ways to recycle' (https://lindstromgroup.com/article/new-ways-to-recyclee/)

accessed 17 June 2019.
Ljungkvist, H., Watson, D. and Elander, M., 2018, Developments in global markets for used textiles and
implications for reuse and recycling.
Luginbühl, C. and Musiolek, B., 2014, Stitched up: poverty wages for garment workers in Eastern Europe
and Turkey, Clean Clothes Campaign.
Luongo, G., Avagyan, R., Hongyu, R. and Östman, C., 2015, 'The washout effect during laundry on
benzothiazole, benzotriazole, quinoline, and their derivatives in clothing textiles', Environmental Science
and Pollution Research 23(3) (DOI: DOI: 10.1007/s11356-015-5405-7).
Madhu, A. and Chakraborty, J. N., 2017, 'Developments in application of enzymes for textile processing',
Journal of Cleaner Production 145, 114–133 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.013).
Magretta, J., 2002, Why Business Models Matter, Harvard Business Review.
Mastercard, 2017, Masterindex 2017: Pan-European e-commerce and new payment trends, Mastercard.
Miller, R. E. and Blair, P. D., 2009, Input output analysis foundations and extensions, 2nd edition, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Morley, N., Slater, S., Russell, S., Tipper, M. and Ward, G., 2006, Recycling of Low Grade Clothing Waste.
de la Motte, H. and Palme, A., 2018, The development of the Blend Re:wind process.
Mugge, R., Schifferstein, H. N. J. and Schoormans, J. P. L., 2005, 'Product Attachment and Product Lifetime:
the Role of Personality Congruity and Fashion', European Advances in Consumer Research 7, 460–467 (DOI:
10.2752/146069205789331637).
News24, 2018, 'Locals lose out in Rwanda’s second-hand clothes war', 7 January 2018
(https://www.news24.com/Africa/News/locals-lose-out-in-rwandas-second-hand-clothes-war-
20180701) accessed 10 April 2019.
Norström, K., 2018, 'Highly fluorinated substances (PFAS) in the Baltic Sea environment', 9 May 2018.
Nova Institut, 2019, Bio-based Building Blocks and Polymers – Global Capacities, Production and Trends
2018-2023.
OECD, 2018, Business Models for the Circular Economy: Opportunities and Challenges from a Policy
Perspective.

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. and Tucci, C. L., 2005, 'Clarifying Business Models: Origins, Present, and Future
of the Concept', Communications of the Association for Information Systems 16 (DOI:
10.17705/1CAIS.01601).
OVAM, 2019, Circulaire economie en de Vlaamse klimaatdoelstellingen. Voedings- en textielsysteem.
Palm, D., Elander, M., Watson, D. and Kioerbo, N., 2014, Towards a Nordic textile strategy: Collection,
sorting, reuse and recycling of textiles, Tema:Nord 538.
Palm, D., Harris, S. and Ekvall, T., 2013, Livscykelanalys av svensk textilkonsumtion. Underlagsrapport till
Naturvårdsverkets regeringsuppdrag om nya etappmål (in Swedish)., IVL Rapport B2133. NV-00336-13.
Bilaga 1.
Palme, A., Peterson, A., de la Motte, H., Theliander, H. and Brelid, H., 2017, 'Development of an efficient
route for combined recycling of PET and cotton from mixed fabrics', Textiles and Clothing Sustainability
3(4), 9 (DOI: 10.1186/s40689-017-0026-9).
Paras, M. K., Ekwall, D., Pal, R., Curteza, A., Chen, Y. and Wang, L., 2018, 'An Exploratory Study of Swedish
Charities to Develop a Model for the Reuse-Based Clothing Value Chain', Sustainability 10(4), 1176 (DOI:
10.3390/su10041176).
Pitkänen, T., 2019, Industrial recycling of blends.
Post-couture Collective, 2019, 'Post-couture Collective' (www.postcouture.cc) accessed 15 April 2019.
van der Putte, I., Qi, S., Affourtit, F., de Wolf, K., Devaere, S. and Albrecht, E., 2013, Study on the Link
Between Allergic Reactions and Chemicals in Textile Products.
Quantis, 2018, Measuring Fashion: Insights from the Environmental Impact of the Global Apparel and
Footwear Industries study.
Recover, 2019, 'Recover' (https://www.recovertex.com/products/) accessed 10 March 2019.
Remy, N., Speelman, E. and Swartz, S., 2016, 'Style that’s sustainable: A new fast-fashion formula |
McKinsey' (https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/style-thats-
sustainable-a-new-fast-fashion-formula) accessed 13 February 2019.
Rengel, A., 2017, Recycled Textile Fibres and Textile Recycling, Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN).
Richardson, J., 2008, 'The business model: an integrative framework for strategy execution', Strategic
Change 17(5–6), 133–144 (DOI: 10.1002/jsc.821).
Ridoutt, B., Motoshita, M. and Pfister, S., 2019, 'An LCA impact assessment model linking land occupation
and malnutrition-related DALYs', The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (DOI: 10.1007/s11367-
019-01590-1).
Rissanen, T., 2011, 'How can fashion designers make clothes less disposable?'
(http://www.ecouterre.com/how-can-fashion-designers-make-clothes-less-disposable/) accessed 8 July
2014.
RREUSE, 2016, RREUSE response to the European Commission’s Circular Economy Package Proposals.
Rusinek, M. J., Zhang, H. and Radziwill, N., 2018, Blockchain for a Traceable, Circular Textile Supply Chain:
A Requirements Approach, Software Quality Professional.

SAC, 2014, 'The Higg index' (http://www.apparelcoalition.org/higgindex/) accessed 6 January 2014.
SAC, 2019, Empowering consumers through transparency.
Šajn, N., 2019, Environmental impact of the textile and clothing industry. What consumers need to know.,
European Parliamentary Research Service.
Sandin, G. and Peters, G., 2018, 'Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling - A review', Journal of
Cleaner Production 184, 353–365.
Schmidt, A., Watson, D., Roos, S., Askham, C. and Brunn Poulsen, P., 2016, Gaining benefits from discarded
textiles LCA of different treatment pathways, Teema:Nord 537.
Sinha, P. and Hussey, C., 2009, Product labelling for improved end-of-life management, Centre for
Remanufacturing and Reuse, Aylesbury, UK.
SITRA and Circle Economy, 2015, Service-based busienss models & circular strategies for textiles.
Skills4Smart, 2019, 'Skills 4 Smart TCLF 2030' (www.s4tclfblueprint.eu/) accessed 10 April 2019.
Stadler, K., Wood, R., Bulavskaya, T., Södersten, C.-J., Simas, M., Schmidt, S., Usubiaga, A., Acosta‐
Fernández, J., Kuenen, J., Bruckner, M., Giljum, S., Lutter, S., Merciai, S., Schmidt, J. H., Theurl, M. C.,
Plutzar, C., Kastner, T., Eisenmenger, N., Erb, K.-H. et al., 2018, 'Exiobase 3: developing a time series of
detailed environmentally extended multi-regional input-output tables', Journal of Industrial Ecology 22(3),
502–515 (DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12715).
Stormie Poodle, 2019, 'Saving the planet in style' (https://stormiepoodle.com/) accessed 17 June 2019.
Suikkanen, J. and Nissinen, 2017, Circular Economy and the Nordic Swan Ecolabel, TemaNord 2017:553.
Svengren Holm, L. and Holm, O., 2010, 'Sustainable fashion - a driver for new business models.', The Nordic
Textile Journal 1, 30–39.
Swedish Chemical Agency, 2013, Hazardous chemicals in textiles – report of a government assignment.
TextileExchange, 2018, Preferred fiber & materials Market Report 2017.
TextileToday, 2018, 'Consumer behaviour, fast fashion, and sustainability'

(https://www.textiletoday.com.bd/consumer-behaviour-fast-fashion-sustainability/) accessed 13
February 2019.
TextileToday, M., 2016, 'World technical textile consumption to reach 42.2 million metric tons by 2020'
(https://www.textiletoday.com.bd/world-technical-textile-consumption-reach-42-2-million-metric-tons-
2020/) accessed 4 October 2019.
The Guardian, 2015, 'Reliving the Rana Plaza factory collapse: a history of cities in 50 buildings, day 22',
The Guardian, 23 April 2015 (https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/23/rana-plaza-factory-
collapse-history-cities-50-buildings) accessed 10 April 2019.
Toffler, A., 1980, The third wave, Morrow, New York.
Toom Tekstiil, 2019, 'Recycling' (http://www.toomtekstiil.ee/en/collections/recycling/) accessed 4

November 2019.

Turley, D. B., Horne, M., Blackburn, R. S., Stott, E., Laybourn, S. R., Copeland, J. E. and Harwood, J., 2009,
The role and business case for existing and emerging fibres in sustainable clothing: final report to the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), London, UK.
UNECE, 2017, Transparency in textile value chains in relation to the environmental, social and human
health impacts of parts, components and production processes., The United Nations Economic Commission
for Europe.
Vehmas, K., Raudaskoski, A., Heikkilä, P., Harlin, A. and Mensonen, A., 2018, 'Consumer attitudes and
communication in circular fashion', Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management:An International
Journal 22(3), 286–300 (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-08-2017-0079).
Vezzoli, C., Ceschin, F., Osanjo, L., M’Rithaa, M. K., Moalosi, R., Nakazibwe, V. and Diehl, J. C., 2018,
Designing Sustainable Energy for All, Green Energy and Technology, Springer International Publishing,
Cham.
Von der Leyen, U., 2019, A Union that strives for more. My agenda for Europe. Political guidelines for the
next European Commission 2019-2024.
Water Footprint Network, 2017, 'Guiding farmers toward sustainable cotton production. Managing the
water footprint on cotton farms.', 2017.
Watson, D., Aare, A. K., Trzepacz, S. and Dahl Petersen, C., 2018, Used Textile Collection in European Cities.
Study commissioned by Rijkswaterstaat under the European Clothing Action Plan (ECAP).
Watson, D., Gylling, A., Andersson, T. and Elander, M., 2017, Textile-to-textile production, Nordic Council
of Ministers.
Watson, D., Gylling, A. C. and Thorn, P., 2017, Business Models Extending Active Lifetime of Garments
Supporting Policy instruments.
Watson, D., Kiørboe, N., Palm, D., Tekie, H., Ekvall, T., Lindhqvist, T., Tojo, N., Salmenperä, H., Hanssen, O.
J., Rubach, S., Lyng, K. and Gíslason, S., 2015, EPR-systems and new business models. Part II: Policy
packages to increase reuse and recycling of textiles in the Nordic region.
Watson, D., Palm, D., Brix, L., Armstrup, M., Syversen, F. and Nielsen, R., 2016, Exports of Nordic Used
Textiles. Fate, benefits and impacts, Tema Nord 558, Nordic Council of MInisters.
Wijnia, G., 2016, Mapping obsolete inventory in the Dutch apparel industry. A qualitative and quantitative
analysis of discounted and unsold volumes in apparel. MSc Thesis., Wageningen University.
Wolkat, 2019, 'Circulaire Textiel Recycling' (http://wolkat.com/) accessed 17 June 2019.
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited, 2018, Safe Chemicals Innovation Agenda.
WRAP, 2012, Valuing our clothes: the true cost of how we design, use, and dispose of clothing in the UK,
Waste and Resources and Action Programme, Banbury, UK.
WRAP, 2019, Fibre to fibre recycling: An economic & financial sustainability assessment.
Zamani, B., Sandin, G. and Peters, G., 2017, 'Life cycle assessment of clothing libraries: can collaborative
consumption reduce the environmental impact of fast fashion?', Journal of Cleaner Production 162, 1368–
1375.

Zhang, Y., Kang, H., Hou, H., Shao, S. and Sun, X., 2018, 'Improved design for textile production process
based on life cycle assessment', Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 20, 1355–1365 (DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1572-9).
Zimniewska, M., Lopez, R., Gloy, Y.-S. and Vanneste, M., 2016, Towards a 4th Industrial Revolution of
Textiles and Clothing. A Strategic Innovation and Research Agenda for the European Textile and Clothing
Industry, Textile ETP, Brussels, Belgium.

European Topic Centre on Waste and Materials The European Topic Centre on Waste and Materials
in a Green Economy in a Green Economy (ETC/WMGE) is a consortium
Boeretang 200 of European institutes under contract of the
BE-2400 Mol European Environment Agency.
Tel.: +14 33 59 83
Web: wmge.eionet.europa.eu
Email: etcwmge@vito.be

Textiles and The Environmental in A Circular Economy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textiles and The Environmental in A Circular Economy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textiles and The Environmental in A Circular Economy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/6

Textiles and the environment in a circular economy

ETC/WMGE consortium partners: Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO),

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

European Topic Centre on Waste and Materials

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 1

1.2 Towards a circular textiles production and consumption system

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 2

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 3

Chapter 5 concludes the report.

Figure 1.1 Vision of a circular economy for textiles

Source: EEA and ETC/WMGE, adapted from EEA (2016)

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 4

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 5

Note: percentages may not sum due to rounding

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 6

Note: percentages may not sum due to rounding

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 7

Source: ICAC (2019)

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 8

Source: Exiobase v.3.4 (Stadler et al., 2018)

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 9

Source: Exiobase v.3.4 (Stadler et al., 2018)

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 10

Figure 2.7 Household expenditure on clothing, footwear and household textiles as a

Source: Eurostat (2019b)

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 11

Source: Eurostat (2019c)

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 12

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 13

Source: Watson et al. (2018)

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 14

Figure 2.10 Export and import of worn textiles, 2000-2018, EU

Source: Eurostat (2019a)

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 15

Table 2.1 Recycling processes for major fibres/textiles

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 16

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 17

Figure 3.1 Environmental impacts across the textiles life-cycle

Source: EEA and ETC/WMGE, based on EEA (2014)

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 18

3.1.1 Resource use

Source: Exiobase v.3.4 (Stadler et al., 2018)

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 19

Source: Exiobase v.3.4 (Stadler et al., 2018)

3.1.2 Land use

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 20

Source: Exiobase v.3.4 (Stadler et al., 2018)

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 21

3.1.3 Greenhouse gas emissions

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 22

Source: Exiobase v.3.4

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 23

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 24

3.2 Social impacts

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 25

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2019/7 26

BOX 4.1 The Global Fashion Agenda

4.2 Envisioning a circular system for textiles